Remedial Lessons on Being a Decent Human

My main takeaway from the results of the US election on Nov. 5, 2024, is that a majority of Americans have failed to identify what it takes to be a decent human being.

Seriously. Whoever thinks it is okay to elect a convicted criminal and chronic liar who violated his oath of office during his first term as president; who finds people and institutions to cruelly condemn and insult for his own political gain; and who apparently feels that being sincere or apologetic is a sign of weakness, really need to reexamine their moral fiber.

I am not sure anyone has accepted the challenge of reeducating our fellow brothers and sisters on just what it means to be decent to other people. So until someone comes along to do just that, I am offering here some very basic guidelines on how to treat others. None of this is new; all of this should be known and cherished, but isn’t.

Welcome to remedial class, kiddos.

“In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you.” — Jesus Christ (0-33), Matthew 7:12 (NIV)

Everyone should know this, often called the Golden Rule. How little it is put into practice, including by many self-proclaimed Christians. In recent years, Americans (including self-proclaimed Christians) have been okay with separating children from their parents for no other reason than having come across the border into the US; prohibiting health care for people who badly need it; and turning a blind eye on systemic civil and human rights abuses. And the rationale is that the people involved are “them” and not “us.”

“If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.” — Jesus Christ, Matthew 5:39 (NIV)

The basic message here is don’t be vindictive even in a bad situation. Instead, show yourself to be the better person. Sadly, Americans (including self-proclaimed Christians) appear to revere egotistical narcissists like Donald Trump, who bullies and insults anyone who gets in his way, spreads lies (breaking the Ninth Commandment with alarming frequency) to make himself look better, and is generally a sore loser.

“On one occasion an expert in the law stood to test Jesus. ‘Teacher,’ he asked, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ ‘What is written in the law?’ he replied. ‘How do you read it?’ He answered: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind; and love your neighbor as yourself.’ ‘You have answered correctly,’ Jesus replied. ‘Do this and you will live.’ ” — Jesus Christ, Luke 10:25 (NIV)

Look at that! Jesus again, for three in a row! While this is a nice and simple formula for being a decent person (and, regarding the ‘love your neighbor’ part a repeat of Leviticus 19:18, so the commandment has been around a very long time), what’s really great is that here it is followed by the parable of the Good Samaritan. As any Christian will know, Jesus told the story to explain what it means to be a neighbor. Specifically, Jesus pointed out that it is not important that your neighbor meet certain minimum qualifications, such as having the same skin color, or the same ethnicity, or the same religion, or the same language, or to be of “your people” however you perceive that. Nor is it about whether helping your neighbor will leave you with a little less food or money. What is important is that you see someone in need, and you extend your help.

“Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.” — Saint Paul, Hebrews 13:2 (NIV)

There are several places in the Bible (such as Leviticus 19:33) that deliver the message that it is our moral duty to extend kindness and hospitality to people who are not like us. I like this one because it is succinct, getting to the meat of the point that those who may appear worthless are quite possibly divine. Unfortunately, the world–including the United States–has become gripped with a fixation that all who are not “like us” are to be suspected and rejected (cue the Trump campaign speeches). It is worth noting that people who lived centuries ago lived among strange people from faraway lands, often quite successfully. We think ourselves modern and advanced, yet have failed to learn a basic lesson.

“The worth of a man is measured by his words and evaluated by his actions.” — Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406)

This one is new to me, but obviously it is not new. Ibn Khaldun was a Muslim scholar in Tunisia at a time when Europeans were still living under centuries of darkness. The fact that this comment is over 600 years old should mean that it is familiar to many people. Sadly it is not. Certainly not to people who appear to think Donald Trump and those like him are qualified to be the leaders of a nation. The words and actions of Trump and others quite plainly show otherwise.

“There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become brethren in the best sense of the expression.” — John Woolman (1720-1772)

The abolitionist John Woolman, an American Quaker, has been called an inspiring writer, a model of Christian charity, a religious genius, and an exemplary figure in the history of social reform. Considering that his life ended over 250 years ago, one might think he was less enlightened than we are today. But it is just the opposite: sadly many people are now less enlightened than he was. It leaves one to wonder how and why people have squandered such richness.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. ” — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”

This statement is so simple that it might appear to be nonsense. But think about it. First, when injustice is left unchallenged, people become desensitized to it and it becomes an endemic part of the culture. Secondly, one act of injustice that is not corrected can metastasize, leading to more and more acts of injustice, until justice itself is at risk. I assume we want justice, right? We claim to want justice. It’s even part of the Pledge of Allegiance that we recite with regularity: “…with liberty and justice for all.” But perhaps those now are empty words.

“We but mirror the world…. If we could change ourselves, the tendencies in the world would also change.” (Be the change you want to see in the world.) — Gandhi (1869-1948)

I end with this because it is a call to action, one that does not reflect any particular political party, religion, or cultural perspective. I admit that I have mostly tuned out the election postmortem. But the few things I have heard suggest that the outcome is because people are mad, people are upset, people want things to change (without providing specifics). What Gandhi is saying is that it is not enough (or not the right approach) to wait for the world to change around you, or for someone else to change first. Instead, we are called to model better behavior. If we each accept that challenge, then the world will change, naturally. Conversely, if we don’t it will only get worse.

One might be tempted to say that these are easy things to say when one has a comfortable life. And you might be right. But consider that these ideas arose from very diverse circumstances, from people who were acquainted with hardship, but all arriving at a similar message. That suggests that the truths are independent of circumstance and instead are (or should be) universal. In that case, they apply universally.

Universally, as in applying to you and applying to me. What needs to happen is that we as people must acknowledge from an early age that these truths (among others) are part of our human heritage. They supersede the ultimately petty differences that seem important in the moment.

Only then will the strife begin to fall away.

Everyone Has the Right to Life, Yes?

Me: I think the United States should express more concern and support for the thousands of innocent Palestinian lives lost in Gaza.

Other people: That’s antisemitic.

Me: What? Everyone has a right to life, yes? Isn’t it supporting human rights?

OP: No. You are not allowed to criticize the actions of Israel. That is antisemitism.

Me: Oh? I didn’t know that. So maybe the United States should not acknowledge any major loss of life due to state action to avoid upsetting any other countries. For example, maybe we should stop remembering Pearl Harbor Day on December 7 or the Nanjing Massacre on December 13. It might be seen as anti-Japanese.

OP: No that’s different. You’re allowed to remember Pearl Harbor Day and the Nanjing Massacre.

Me: But won’t the Japanese feel like it is a criticism of the actions of their country?

OP: I don’t know. Maybe. But it doesn’t matter. Any country can be criticized for its human rights record except Israel.

Me: Really? Why?

OP: Because it’s antisemitism.

Me: Who defines what it means to be antisemitic?

OP: Israel.

Me: Huh, very interesting. What if Japan decides that continued remembrances of Pearl Harbor Day or the Nanjing Massacre are anti-Japanese?

OP: They can’t do that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because over 2,400 people were killed at Pearl Harbor and something like 300,000 in Nanjing. Such atrocities should be remembered.

Me: In that case, over 65,000 Japanese were killed when the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Should that be remembered?

OP: Maybe.

Me: And over 40,000 people have been killed in Gaza.

OP: No, that’s different. You are not allowed to talk about that.

Me: Why not?

OP: Because Israel cannot be criticized for its actions. That’s antisemitism.

Me: So you’re saying that the only country in the whole world that can declare itself immune to criticism is Israel?

OP: Yes.

Me: Fascinating.

Trying to Erase Palestine

This is a picture of a railroad bridge in my hometown.

A few months ago, someone spray painted FREE PALESTINE on this bridge, in green and red paint. Not long after, someone — the city? the railroad? — had someone go up on the catwalk with a bucket of brown paint and a roller, and paint over PALESTINE. Those blocks of lighter brown paint are where the letters used to be. (To see this picture at full resolution, click here.)

They did not paint over FREE — you can still see it at the left side of the photo. Also, if they were interested in keeping graffiti to a minimum they would have painted over the graffiti that has been put there since they painted over PALESTINE, but they have not.

They only painted over the word PALESTINE, as if to say that there is something inherently wrong about Palestine.

This makes me wonder why.

Palestine, or more clearly Palestinians, are a people without a state. In this respect they are akin to other stateless people in the world, such as the Kurds and the Roma. While there is a team of athletes at the 2024 summer Olympic Games in Paris representing Palestine, Palestine is not a member state of the United Nations.

Yet they are an ethnicity who share a cultural identity. Millions of people in the Middle East and various countries around the world self-identify as Palestinian. Even people with Jordanian or Israeli citizenship identify ethnically as Palestinian.

Importantly, they are doctors and teachers and businesspeople. They are mothers and fathers. They are people hoping to end over 75 years of statelessness, occupation, and exile.

Perhaps those who painted over PALESTINE on the bridge truly are under the impression that there is something inherently wrong with Palestine. But it would be an ignorant mistake to think that being Palestinian equals being a terrorist and that all support of Palestinian human rights is anti-Israel.

This would be like saying that in the 1930s and 1940s, being German equals being a Nazi. (There were in fact Germans who opposed the policies of the Nazi party.)

This would be like saying being Muslim equals being a terrorist. (There are millions of Muslims worldwide who are peaceful, law-abiding people.)

This would be like saying being Black equals being enslaved. (This, of course, is unequivocally not true.)

Imagine a reverse situation: the spray painter instead painted FREE AMERICA, and then someone was offended by the word AMERICA and painted over only that word. What does that say? Does it say that the word is itself offensive? Does it say that those who identify as American do not have a right to say so? Does it mean just by asserting an American identity you are somehow threatening others?

I would like to think that in this modern era, humanity has moved beyond the idea that one nationality or ethnicity is naturally (or divinely) better than another. I would like to think that we don’t try to dehumanize people who we think are different from us. The United Nations was formed in 1945 under the idea that (with the somewhat questionable exception of the Security Council Permanent Members) all nations on Planet Earth have an equal seat at the table, have an equal stake in the outcome of international decisions, and are capable of cooperation rather than animosity.

Sadly, reality is much more complicated and less optimistic. Nationalism — the idea that nations of the world cannot work together and in fact are and ought to be kept separate — is on the rise in many parts of the world, including the United States.

And with nationalism comes the desire to define who is “us” and who is “them,” and who gets to stay, and who gets erased.

But it should not be for a town in Maryland, United States to decide whether Palestinians exist.

The Many-Hued, Messy Faith That is Christianity

I was raised in an evangelical Christian church. I no longer identify as an evangelical. More on why that is some other time.

The thing is, when I was younger, I used to get annoyed by how TV and movies seemed to always depict Christians as Catholics.

Growing up, my church taught that Catholics were not good Christians. They spent too much time on ritual and ornamentation. There was too much memorization of formulaic prayers and not enough memorization of Bible verses. They took their orders from the Pope rather than directly from God (as interpreted by your local pastor, of course). Their faith was too impersonal.

So as a young evangelical Christian, I never identified with the Catholics portrayed onscreen. They may as well have been Muslims, as far as I was concerned.

These days, I don’t really care that “Christian” is equated with “Catholic.” I think it is just easier for the storytelling, so that the audience can readily identify the character as “Christian” and not Jewish or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist. Of course that assumes that the audience is not seeing “Catholic” as opposed to Methodist or Lutheran or Presbyterian or Greek Orthodox or Jehovah’s Witness or Quaker or Assemblies of God.

Because Christianity does come in many, many flavors. Over the centuries, Christians have diversified into an almost countless number of denominations, sects, cults, and systems of belief. There is no more one type of Christian than there is one style of ice cream.

This is true in spite of the fact that on a regular basis, someone attempts to speak for all Christians. The Pope is a good example. The office of the Pope is intended to be the recognized head of The One Church, Universal and Catholic. What about everyone else? Don’t know; don’t care.

Another example is the increasingly insistent whine of culturally conservative people who identify as some form of Christian. They say various untrue things like “Christians are being silenced” or “Christian voters are being demonized” or “Christians don’t believe in vaccines.” They incorrectly say that to be a “real” Christian you must vote for certain candidates and be in favor of certain cultural, racial, and economic policies (Fun Fact: Jesus said none of these things.) These spokesmen, these self-anointed prophets, tell you what to think, how to read your Bible, which interpretations are approved and which are not.

But that’s just not how Christianity, as laid out by Jesus himself, is. It is varied, diverse, open to many, caring and loving.

There is a saying that’s been around a while in faith circles:

In Essentials: Unity
In Non-essentials: Liberty
In all things: Charity

We could use a bit more of that right about now.

Because I Am Involved in Mankind

As I said in a previous post, lies spread because people want to believe them. They need to believe because often it goes to their very identity. Without those lies, they would lose their sense of self.

And people are fed lies for related reasons. Primarily, it is to create an atmosphere of confusion, out of which power brokers, politicians, and cultural elites can solidify and reinforce their power.

I just read an insightful article on this topic, laying out the framework under which lies are used to seize and retain power. Written by Leo E. Strine, Jr., a law professor, and published by Harvard Law School, it says that “The utility of those [false and misleading] issues is to inculcate a sense of identity and fealty in the masses who serve as their power base.” (“Inculcate” means to impress upon the mind through frequent repetition–I had to look it up.)

Think about it: picture for yourself someone–either in person or online–who is vehemently defending the position that all abortions should be illegal everywhere, or that climate change is only accepted by those “indoctrinated” by the “woke”, or that vaccines cause harm and create no health benefits. When you try to present an alternative to their worldview–using facts, logic, or reason–what happens? They get angry, they get upset, they start name-calling, some even begin to issue threats.

Why? Because they are scared. Like a cornered wild animal, they are lashing out.

And why is that? Because your perfectly legitimate views–based on facts, logic, and reason–threaten their very existance.

Because those lies have created for them the equivalent of family, of The Team, of Us (versus Them). It is protection from the terrors of an uncertain future. It is where they feel most safe and secure, even when, paradoxically, they are actually embarking on a path toward their own harm (such as with the refusal to get vaccinated against preventable disease, or the refusal to take rational action to prepare for a changed climate).

What then? We have seen hints of what is coming: fanaticism, tribalism, dissolution, violence.

Would it not be in everyone’s best interest if those stoking the fires with their self-serving lies were to turn down the rhetoric? Show some humility? Show some humanity and acknowledge that all lives are interconnected?

Strine’s advice is this: “When someone denies fact, mainstream institutions should call that out and refuse to legitimize their misinformation tactics.  Lies should be labeled as lies.”

That’s as good a place to start as any.