Meditations on Institutional Dilemmas

Religion is all about promoting ethical action. Government is all about promoting justice.

Or are they?

Senior clerics in Iran criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for consoling Hugo Chavez’s mother with a light embrace at the state funeral for the deceased leader; physical contact between unrelated men and women considered sinful according to current Islamic codes of behavior.

Prominent Cardinals are now in Vatican City participating in the conclave that will select a new Pope. Several of these Cardinals have been implicated in covering up child abuse scandals, or financial or other improprieties—yet they do not recuse themselves from participation in the conclave that will select the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

Westboro Baptist Church, of Topeka, Kansas, has actively protested against homosexuality, abortion, Judaisim and Islam, and Roman Catholicism, and hosts of other things. Protest is one thing; hate-filled vitriol being poured out as free speech is another.

Here’s the thing: Religion is intended to guide people toward ethical interaction. Government is supposed to insure justice. What is all too apparent is that the humans who lead these institutions are not always following the intent that has been laid out in the scriptures or laws they are supposed to be stewarding.

This leads the average person to confront a huge moral dilemma: Follow institutional interdiction just because someone at the head office says so, or do what is right and just despite the interdiction.

The real-world results of this dilemma create a huge psychological mess, not to mention a whole lot of civil litigation. We are all riding two horses, at various times. It is a world-class case of cognitive dissonance of crowds!

Hillel the Elder is quoted in the Talmud as having said “What is hateful to you, do not do to another”, and likewise, the second century Rabbi Akiva cites Leviticus 19:18 as the greatest commandment in Jewish doctrine: "'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against anyone among your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord.”  The Christian Gospel message of Jesus is “Love thy Neighbor as thyself.” The Quran clearly defines moral standards in Chapter 17:22-37, and Islamic jurists of the Middle Ages introduced many modern seeming civil rights concepts and freedoms, even for women, that have appeared in constitutional law during the past two hundred years.

That rights and freedoms are restricted, that “neighbors” are infringed upon and excluded, that civil rights are not being upheld for all individuals, such are amoral and unethical actions, and yet is so transparently visible among those who have been assigned moral authority.

When the institutions have been hollowed out by immoral and unethical authoritarians, who act contrary to the standards they are meant to uphold, what is the “believer” to do?

The case of the Pussy Riot punk rock group and its public political protest against the cult of Vladimir Putin and his governmental repression on Russia, particularly from the standpoint of women’s issues, from within the sanctuary of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow is very interesting. The Putin regime has been befriended and supported by the Russian Orthodox Church. In support of the Russian Orthodox Church, the Putin regime has suppressed and restricted Protestants, despite the fact that the post-Communist Russian constitution allows freedom of religion. Protestant churches have been closed, with charges of spying or money laundering or other impropriety; Protestant denominations have been labeled “cults” and have been spoken against by church leaders in media. Democracy is not being demonstrated in such actions, and neither is Christian charity. Good old-fashioned authoritarianism is apparently alive and well in Russia, but not only in Russia.

What is an ethical person to do when the authorities are corrupt? Does corruption irreparably taint the institution? What happens when good people follow bad leaders and false precepts?

I do not have an answer for you. If I had an answer for you, I would not want you to follow it.

You must follow what your own heart and mind tell you, what your connection to the Divine speaks in you or your sense of what is right tells you.

I can tell you that I long ago answered that question for myself, and the answer is illustrated by the following story from the Buddhist tradition.

Once there were two monks traveling when they arrived at a river. At the river they discovered a woman struggling to get across. Without a second thought, the older of the two monks asked the woman if she needed help, then swiftly picked her up and carried her across to the other bank.

For Buddhist monks, especially in ancient times, any contact with the opposite sex would be strongly frowned upon, if not forbidden. The actions of the older monk greatly troubled the younger monk, who allowed his feelings to fester for several miles, as they continued their journey.

Finally, the younger monk confronted the older monk, "How could you have done such a thing? We are not even supposed to be in a woman's presence, but you touched her, carried her even!"

The older monk calmly replied, "I put that woman down miles ago, back at the river. But you are still carrying her."

The younger monk realized the older monk was indeed correct and they continued on their journey.

The Legacy of Time

It has been interesting, over the course of the past few years, to see the downfall of some of our politicians over their sexual infidelities. Here is a partial roll-call:

Newt Gingrich

John Ensign

John McCain

John Edwards

Gary Hart

Jim McGreevey

Elliot Spitzer

Gary Condit

Rudy Giuliani

Mark Sanford

David Vitter

Bob Livingston

Mark Foley

Jesse Jackson

Barney Frank

Tim Mahoney

Mike Duvall

Gavin Newsom

Arnold Schwarzenegger

… and many, many more!

Notice anything about the list? No, they are not all Republicans… They are all MEN! Power is, evidently, an aphrodisiac. Power also seems to provide access to a wider range of folks than one might find at home.

It is interesting that one doesn’t see women politicians similarly implicated. Perhaps this is because the field of female politicians is smaller than that of their male counterparts. It has also been suggested that female power is a turnoff to men; that may well be true.

What I find interesting is that all these folks are involved in policy making, and a lot of the time, while they have talked about family values and morality, the policies they have advocated do not support families, family life, children, or the environment. And then we find out the truth of their family values and moral fiber.

We elected these men (perhaps they should no longer be called gentlemen), sometimes based on speeches made during campaign tours, posing with spouses and children. Like homes that are professionally staged before being put for sale on the market, this is an advertising ploy. And we fall for it, in a big way… in fact, almost every time. Part of the “marketing” and “packaging” of a candidate is called Moral Credentialing, whereby a person establishes (or has established for him) a moral image. Once someone (male or female) has an established moral image, studies have shown that person may subsequently feel free to behave less ethically.

Now, let’s take a look at religion for a moment. Here again, there are a lot of men at the top of the heap of religious leaders. Many of these leaders have helped to maintain male domination over women in matters of work, culture, politics and religion. There seems to have thousands of years of mythmaking around the notion of a male god who created everything at the beginning of time. This, even though it is clear that there were ancient female divinities. Future generations, moving forward from the beginning of time, of male leaders were evidently turned off by the idea that feminine power could create, and so these ancient myths about female divinities were hijacked or obliterated, as far as possible.

Many people don’t realize that a universal element in creation stories is family. Everything may have been created by something divine (female or male of inclination, or both), but after that, there are children who procreate. We are a human family, however it was our species was created and has evolved—and isn’t it interesting that most of the stories have humans listed as the last of the creations?

Life is about family, revolves around family, promotes family. God should be firmly about family and about life, shouldn’t it?

Yet, we continue, as humans, to be embroiled in the constant need, even desperate desire, to have pecking orders and supremacy and authority and control over others (whomsoever others may be). And, I hate to say it, because there are a lot of terrific fellows out there, but the major players in this are men.

There is this moral image being pushed at us all the time, and over it is superimposed the false notion that the Divine is male only. To which I reply, if the Divine had been male, rather than female or even androgynous (which circumstance does appear in some creation myths), then why would there be the any need at all for female energy? If the male energy were so important and so special, why create two genders?

But, ladies, I'll let you in on the joke. The men can't handle the awful truth that women bear the children. Men can talk any kind of game they want to about creation and about the divinity being male, but they cannot change the fact that women bear the children and women hold the family together.

Women bear the legacy of time. Men have never been able to compete with that.

Maybe if men start getting pregnant, the landscape of things will change. I don’t see this happening, in either the foreseeable future or beyond.

But here is another question: What if the Divine were male and as unfaithful as some of our politicians and our religious leaders have been? Would or should anyone follow an unfaithful god? Taking it farther, would or should anyone follow policy made by unfaithful leaders? Further, should nice people (men or women) follow unfaithful men (or women)?

If the answer is not clear, then there is something wrong. 

Meanwhile, a better focus for one’s attention and energy might just be the notion that human beings, male and female, were created to be. The human family universal ought to honor the family, in all gender presentations and combinations, and in all children. Why? Because family is the evidence of the continuance of life, and life is the Holy Divine (male and female and neutral), from generation to generation. Family is the most inclusive group in the world, not that that always makes it an easy group to be in—but the point is you cannot choose your family; you come into it, whether it is your nuclear family, your community family, your regional family, your continental family, your world community. However you got here, you came into this world—to be—and wherever you are in this large picture, you have a place and a role to fulfill within this family, and that is holy!

I firmly believe that if we, as a species, could have faith in our human family as evidence of the sacredness of life, the landscape of attitudes, ethics and morals, religion and politics would truly change. Who knows, some of it might be rendered useless and go away forever. And wouldn't that be nice?

Meanwhile, the end of the world is supposed to happen on Saturday.

But, this is the way of enlightenment: I will be among the cleanup crew on Sunday.

(sigh)

Someone has to bear the legacy of time.