Our Values

Veterans Day "good news"? Heard of the "Contageous Love Experiment"?

2009-11-11T00:11:00-05:00

Have you heard about the two Iraq veterans and their “Contagious Love Experiment”?
    This is Veterans Day, the annual holiday honoring those who served in the military. Here’s how two veterans are honoring their fellow servicemen and women.
    Josh Stieber was in middle school on "9/11." He says, “I understood that there were people out there who wanted to destroy my country and hated my religion. My religion (church, religious school) promoted war and I made a deal with God that if the war was still going on when I graduated high school, I would be honored to enlist in the army as an infantryman.”
    True to his deal with God, and “somewhat glad” the war was still on when he graduated, Stieber enlisted. He was deployed to Baghdad in 2007. “I learned that the military trains people to hate and dehumanize entire people groups,” he says, “not showing sadness for the difficult task of ‘removing evil’.”
    Josh applied for conscientious objector status after he returned from 14 months in Iraq.
    “If I am saying no to war, I want to find out what to say yes to. I want to take a negative and invest it into a positive. In a country where war is preached from the churches, I want to do a little to remember the man who those churches are built for, the man who visited the orphans, served the poor, clothed the naked, fed the hungry… and loved. So that’s what I’ve set out to do and I hope that that love is contagious.”
    Conor Curran joined the Contagious Love Experiment after two tours of duty in Iraq. As he attempted to readjust to civilian life, he found he couldn’t shake his feelings of guilt and anger. “I saw the potential in each person I passed in the street to carry out harm or some type of negative action… I realized I had been living my life preparing myself to handle anything negative another may do to me, and in doing so I had involved myself in a life of callousness, war and anger.”
    “I decided not only would I try to not judge the people I meet," Conor says. "Instead, I would try to love them and see what happens. As I began this new exercise in love, I found my life transformed and refreshed, and the people in my life seemed to be changed and renewed as well. Was love contagious? Could it change the world?”
    Their Contagious Love Experiment has them biking across America, having random encounters with strangers and meeting with and speaking to organized groups. This week, according to their schedule, they are in the Bay area—the Metta Center in Berkeley, the Berkeley Friends Center, and the Lafayette Veterans Day Vigil.
    What do you think of the efforts?

Care to read more?
First, here's the Web site Josh and Conor have set up for their nationwide experiment.
Then, here's the page in their site where you can see their stops since July—and where they're headed through the end of November.

PLEASE, Add a Comment

From The Wall's fall to Veterans Day: Are we focused on the right images?

2009-11-09T23:13:47-05:00

Did Obama’s remarks about the Ft. Hood tragedy focus on the right message? Are we as Americans focusing on the right images and issues?
    Facts about the Ft. Hood tragedy—some quite alarming and disturbing—are beginning to emerge. But before we move on to consider these facts and what they mean, we should pause to reflect on what the president said about the horrible event—and whether this is the right way to look at it.
    Here’s an excerpt from his weekly address, which he devoted to condolences offered to the victims and their families:
    “Thursday’s shooting was one of the most devastating ever committed on an American military base. And yet, even as we saw the worst of human nature on full display, we also saw the best of America. We saw soldiers and civilians alike rushing to aid fallen comrades; tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured; using blouses as tourniquets; taking down the shooter even as they bore wounds themselves. ...”
    “We saw the valor, selflessness, and unity of purpose that make our servicemen and women the finest fighting force on Earth; that make the United States military the best the world has ever known; and that make all of us proud to be Americans.”
    In times like these, a president has to present a strong, reassuring image. But in this case, did he focus too much on the silver lining and too little on the dark cloud?
    With full credit to the courageous actions of the soldiers and civilians who responded, is it correct to interpret all this as “the best of America” or evidence that ours is “the finest fighting force on Earth”?
    A more powerful message would have been to pledge a renewed commitment to address the key issues facing the military, and that were implicated in the Ft. Hood tragedy. Among these are the growing numbers of battle-stressed soldiers, inadequate psychological care, the challenge of readjusting to civilian life, and, of course, resolution of the wars themselves.
    Using the tragedy to face and name these issues would have been “the best of America.”
    Do you agree?
    How did the president’s remarks strike you?

(Note on today's photo: This Associated Press photo of U.S. Iraq War veteran James Blake Miller was dubbed "the Marlboro Man" and was celebrated around the world as the face of American determination. The photo now is a provocative image. Back in the U.S., Miller's life spiraled out of control from post-traumatic stress. He was quoted in 2007 as saying: "What have we gained as a country? What have we actually accomplished other than the loss of some damn fine people?")

PLEASE, Add a Comment

When the Wall Fell: What do you recall? And, where are we now?

2009-11-09T00:06:00-05:00

Today is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall came down over time, but November 9th is the official date when it was OK to hammer away at it.
    What did you think when the first images flashed around the world?
    One image I remember was a sign, in German, that read, “Capitalism Wins!” Is that really the point, I thought? Is the world now safer for the spread of McDonalds, Levis, and Hollywood movies?
    The fall of the Berlin Wall was a watershed moment in the transition of historic eras—from the Cold War with the world neatly divided into two giant camps—to a new and as we have since learned, scarier, world in which enemies are no longer found so easily by peering across a physical wall or a national boundary.
    Now the walls are spider webs and the enemy is spectral and lives in shadows. War is psychological.
    Is our all-volunteer army up to the task? The tragedy at Ft. Hood last week raised many questions, including the inevitable questions about possible terrorist links or religious motivations. Army investigations underway will shed light on the answers.
    But one thing became clear over the past 24 hours: Much of the investigation seems focused on the psychological breaking point of the shooter at Ft. Hood. In fact, around the world our troops are at a breaking point, living with the constant stress of war, year after year—soon approaching a decade of armed conflict without much resolution in sight.
    Yesterday, Army Chief of Staff General George Casey cited a new army study that finds that it takes at least two years to recover from the stress of one year in combat. Many of the troops at Ft. Hood have served multiple tours of duty. How many years will it take them to recover, if ever?
    This Wednesday is Veterans Day. Perhaps a positive outcome of the Ft Hood tragedy will be a serious look at the plight of veterans and their families today.
    Tell us: What do you recall from the fall of the Wall? What did it mean to you then—and are there connections with where we stand today?

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Good without God: Finally, sorting fact from fiction on faith and youth

2009-11-06T00:07:51-05:00

This week, we’ve delved into religion and America’s youth. Our foray reveals conflicting evidence about what they believe and what they do.
    Some say America’s teenagers and young adults hold unflattering opinions of Christianity today. Disaffected with organized religion, they are leaving religious doctrine and organizations behind. They are good without God. (Scroll down to read earlier entries in this series.)
    Others find that America’s youth are engaged in religion, and enjoy benefits from their involvement. They are good with God.
    I wonder if both sides are right—in an odd sort of way. Rebellion is a normal and predictable life stage as childhood is left behind and teens and young adults go out on their own. Maybe all we are seeing is the usual and normal progression—no different from what older people today went through in their formative years.
    Here are some data to support my thesis, drawn from an unscientific sample of committed churchgoers who are now in their 50s, 60s, and 70s. All said that they stopped going to church once they were old enough to make independent decisions. A prominent pastor is among this group, saying that he stopped going to church even when he decided to go to seminary.
    I, too, number among this group. I grew up in an involved religious family, but as soon as I could make decisions on my own, I “quit.” I just stopped going. Like many, however, I returned to the church once I was married, had a family, and faced the challenge of teaching my child about a moral life—and reminding myself in the process.
    Does this ring true for you? Did you have a similar experience?
    The week's not over! Please, chime in with your thoughts, ideas, and experiences!

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Are American teens REALLY so ... Good without God? (Alternative data)

2009-11-05T00:11:00-05:00

Are young Americans truly disenchanted with organized religion? Are they leaving in droves?
    Not really, according to data collected by the ongoing National Study of Youth and Religion. About two-thirds of 12th graders, for example, are not alienated from or hostile to organized religion. Only 15% are alienated, with another 15% merely disengaged.
    The National Study of Youth and Religion has collected a number of intriguing facts about young Americans, showing that religious teens benefit in ways that their non-religious peers do not.
    Here are some examples:
    Religious high school seniors who say religion is very important are more likely to have positive attitudes about themselves.
    Religious 12th graders are more active in sports, athletics, and exercise.
    They are more likely to have positive relationships with their fathers.
    And, religious 12th graders are less likely to engage in risky behaviors—though not immune from doing so.
    Among American teenagers, ages 13 to 17, those who are religious are much less likely to view R-rated movies, compared with those who are not religious.
    What do you think of these facts about America’s youth and religion? Do they accord with your own observations?

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Good without God: Are Christians, well, UnChristian?

2009-11-03T22:38:05-05:00

Many young people—ages 16 to 29—have mixed feelings about Christians today, according to studies reported in a controversial book, UnChristian.
    The authors focused on the perceptions of Christianity by young “outsiders”—atheists, agnostics, and adherents to faiths outside Christianity—but they also report what young Christians have to say.
    The book has been a sensation covered in the media as well as the pulpit and in discussion groups around America. (View one of the authors on national TV here.)
    Here’s what the young outsiders say: Christianity is judgmental, hypocritical, anti-homosexual, and too involved in politics.
    Many young Christians have troubled feelings themselves. Eighty percent of young churchgoers agree that Christianity is anti-gay. About half say it is judgmental, too political, hypocritical, and confusing, according to summary of research findings.
    One of three young Christians believe their faith is old-fashioned and almost as many say it is out of touch with reality, boring, and insensitive to others.
    If you are in the 16-to-29 demographic, do you agree? What are your thoughts about Christianity?
    If you, like me, saw 29 long ago, what are your thoughts about these findings of young Americans and what they believe?

    Today, we're trying hard to encourage some younger readers to comment. One way we're doing that is urging you to "Digg" this article now. Click the link and add your vote. (If you don't "do" Digg, now's a good time to do the free registration and dip your toe in the water there.)

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Good without God: What do you think of humanism?

2009-11-02T23:10:29-05:00

Are alternatives to religion, such as humanism, good replacements for organized religion?
    “Atheism alone, as the rejection of gods and the supernatural, cannot meet our deepest human needs for connection and inspiration,” writes Greg Epstein in his just-released book, "Good without God: What a Billion Nonreligious People Believe." (He's in the photo at right.)
    Epstein is the Humanist Chaplain at Harvard University. This chaplaincy “is dedicated to building, educating, and nurturing a diverse community of humanists, agnostics, atheists, and the non-religious at Harvard and beyond,” according to the organization’s web site.
    Defining humanism is a tall order. Here’s a short video clip of Epstein, providing his definition—one that he sums up in three words: Good without God.
    Part of his mission is to define what humanism is, not what it’s against. Humanists often debate the existence of God, when he says they should be focusing on the concrete alternatives to religious belief and practice.
    These practices often mirror religious practices. He promotes secular celebrations of the major moments in life, such as “baby naming ceremonies” that involve friends and family. Others choose “welcoming ceremonies” as another alternative.
    An alternative to choosing “godparents,” he says, should be a public ceremony for choosing and naming “guide parents.”
    Secular wedding ceremonies are another obvious alternative to a religious wedding. “After the vows are exchanged,” he writes, “I think it’s good to ask those in attendance to answer a question: do you, this couple’s family and friends, promise to encourage and support them in creating a strong and vital marriage? The answer is always ‘We do’.”
    What do you think of Epstein’s advice?
    Is humanism a reasonable alternative to traditional religious beliefs and practices?
    What secular practices do you engage in, if any?

PLEASE, Add a Comment

"Are you good without God?"

2009-11-01T22:41:52-05:00

Our headline today is on a billboard in downtown Chicago. In New York, the advertising campaign puts it a little differently—see a copy of the Big Apple posters at right. Donors, in some cases anonymous, are paying to hang these messages in cities around the country.
    In Illinois, the public confession of atheism was put up by the Chicago Coalition of Reason. The organization “is a group of like-minded member organizations from throughout the Chicagoland area that share a worldview grounded in reason over superstition, and scientific evidence over revealed truth.”
    What do you think of these messages?
    According to the organization’s press release, the billboard “is part of a coordinated multi-organizational advertising campaign designed to raise awareness about people who don't believe in a god. It fits into a nationwide effort that has now come to the Chicago area.”
    The dual purpose of the national billboard campaign is to let humanists, atheists, and agnostics know that there’s a community and home for them, and to let everyone else know that it’s possible to be “good without belief in God.”
    I wonder what it will mean to my young son when he reads one of these billboards. He hasn’t seen one yet, but when he does, I’m sure it will spark an interesting conversation! No doubt that’s one of the intentions of the billboard makers.
    It’s intriguing that these public messages come at a time when the opposite of atheism—religious fanaticism—is so obvious and prevalent.
    How do the nation’s youth grapple with these polar opposites? How do they navigate the waters between religious extremism and denial of God? How do they find a sense of meaning and purpose?
    We’ll explore these issues this week on OurValues.org. It’s bound to be a rousing conversation, so join in!

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Executive Pay: "Moral hazard"—trying to clean up a tricky problem

2009-10-30T00:01:00-04:00

Here’s one reason why the issue of big bonuses at bailed-out firms has come up at all: “moral hazard.”
    Moral hazard? It's a venerable term in finance describing the problem that arises when key decision makers are insulated from the impact of their decisions. But, instead of a detailed definition of the phrase, here’s an example of how moral hazard might affect you:
    Invest all your money in, say, cold fusion technology. Big gamble, but it if it works, you make a fortune! If it fails, you still win. The government bails you out, declaring that you are too big to fail. Now, pay yourself a big executive bonus as a reward.
    Ah, if only the real world worked that way for you and me! It works for big financial institutions but not for us.
    With the U.S. government as the Big Insurer, bankers have huge incentives to make extremely risky investments. They might win big. But if they get into trouble, the feds bail them out—and then they pay themselves big bonuses.
    This week, legislation was proposed that would end the moral hazard problem. The idea is that, with this new legislation: When a big firm gets in trouble, the executives would be sacked and the shareholders would shoulder the financial loss.
    U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner explained: “Under the proposed special resolution authority, a failing firm would be placed into an FDIC-managed receivership. The purpose of the receivership would be to unwind, dismantle, sell, or liquidate the firm in an orderly way that protects the financial system at lowest cost to taxpayers. Shareholders and other providers of regulatory capital of the failing firm would be forced to absorb losses, and managers responsible for the failure would be replaced.”
    This legislation would produce “strong, accountable supervision of all our major financial firms and imposes costs not on the taxpayer but with the risk-takers, where they belong. It deters excessive risk taking and forces firms to better protect themselves against failure.” (You can read more on the U.S. Treasury Web site.)
    What do you think of this proposed measure? Do you support it?
    Would it really solve the problem?

PLEASE, Add a Comment

Executive Pay: How does the CEO's pay compare to workers' checks?

2009-10-29T00:08:00-04:00

The inequality between CEO pay and the typical worker’s pay has grown in leaps and bounds.
    In 1965, CEOs of big American companies earned 24 times the typical worker’s pay, according to the Economic Policy Institute. The EPI is a non-partisan think tank.
    In 2007, the difference was 275 times the typical worker’s pay. The average CEO’s compensation had increased 167.3% from 1989 to 2007. In the same period, the compensation of the typical worker had risen by only 10%.
    Surprised?
    The huge gap between CEO and worker pay in America has no rival around the world, according to the EPI’s statistics. The United Kingdom is the only nation that comes close. Other than the U.K., all European nations and Japan have much smaller ratios of CEO to worker pay.
    The flap about big bonuses for executives of bailed out banks is only the most recent instance of long-run concerns about growing inequality.
    Even before the 2008 crash, some leaders labeled the rising pay gap “perfectly scandalous,” called for a “fat cat” tax on the highly compensated, and argued for an all-around cap on top executives’ pay.
    These weren’t even American leaders—they were Europeans referring to the rising gap in their own countries. They were quoted in a USA Today article last year.
    America continues to top the pay-inequality list. Should this be a cause for concern?
    Are you concerned about it? Why or why not?
PLEASE, Add a Comment