September 26, 2006
Is the 'American Dream' a biblical idea?
I've been reading Blue Like Jazz by Donald Miller lately. Really good.
Through him I came across these guys. And that led me to this excellent article, an excerpt of which is below. Jeff was in town the other day, and has (again) encouraged me to write more.
I'd like to write like Miller.
James Truslow Adams was the first to officially coin the phrase “American Dream” in 1931 in The Epic of America, repeating the phrase over 30 times throughout his book. Adams stressed that no theme was more important to American citizens and that it was the “greatest contribution that Americans have given to the welfare of the world.” He argued that ultimately it would give every American a “richer and happier life for citizens of every rank.” In one sense his remarks are accurate in that this dream can be inspirational, helping disenfranchised groups continue to work towards rising out of their circumstances. On the other hand, the belief in it creates a dangerous contentment. This contentment encourages us to remain in our current circumstances instead of uniting for the creation of a fair system. Within the disguise of being a tremendous contribution, the Dream idealization becomes a powerful force that is difficult to question or criticize.
Now we must begin to ask ourselves: what is wrong with this, or why does this conflict with Christianity? We look first to the Bible’s call for justice and mercy for the less fortunate. Although I could choose hundreds, one of my favorite verses that states this clearly is Matthew 5:6-8: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled. Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” There is a clear call to “hunger and thirst” for righteousness and mercy that we cannot ignore. So, what does this mean in reference to the Dream? It is obvious when we realize that the most widespread misconception of the Dream is that there is equal access to achieving a good life for everyone.
The reality behind this false equality premise is truly disturbing. In the United States characteristics such as race, gender, class, sexuality, and other factors implicitly impair the ability to participate in this dream, even more than most other parts of the world, for example Tom Hertz from American University writes:
“The chances of living a rags-to-riches life in America are a lot lower than elsewhere in the world. The chances of a child born into a poor family will make it into the top five percent is less than one percent. By contrast, a child born into a wealthy family had a 22 percent chance of being as rich as the family they grew up in. On average, 47 percent of poor families remain poor. But within this, 32 percent of whites stay poor while the figure for blacks is 63 percent. It works the other way as well, with only 3 percent of blacks making it from the bottom quarter of the income ladder to the top quarter, versus 14 percent of whites.”
Hertz then argues, “Consider a rich and poor family in the United States and a similar pair of families in Denmark, and ask how much of the difference in the parents’ incomes would be transmitted, on average, to their grandchildren…In the United States this would be 22 percent; in Denmark it would be two percent.” Most of all, I find it interesting that the ideology of the American dream has much more supporting evidence in many other countries around the developed world, yet many Americans still believe that the rags-to-riches life is a reality for large amounts of the population and something that America has cornered the market on.
September 06, 2006
Tricky Question
I've lifted a post from the World magazine blog by Marvin Olasky about his interview with a writer.
This statement about a question I've posed here before has got me thinking:
No Christian... ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds – what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – especially if it compromises the worth and dignity of an individual.
Makes sense.
In an upcoming issue of World we'll run an interview with Barnard professor Randal Balmer, author of Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts the Faith and Threatens America: An Evangelical's Lament. One of my questions to him was this: "You complain that, 'The torture of human beings, God's creatures - some guilty of crimes, others not - has been justified by the Bush administration….the use of torture under any circumstances is a moral issue.' Agreed that torture is terrible and sometimes useless in gaining information, but… if the imminent explosion of a nuclear bomb would kill millions of people, and if by applying some kind of physical pressure to a terrorist you could gain information that would lead to its location and disarming, would you do it?"
His reply: "No, absolutely not, and I’m surprised that you would even suggest such a thing! I was under the impression that conservatives were allergic to utilitarian arguments; certainly that is what I learned from Paul Ramsey in graduate school. No Christian, he insisted, ever made an ethical decision solely on utilitarian grounds – what is the greatest good for the greatest number of people – especially if it compromises the worth and dignity of an individual.
"In the course of writing Thy Kingdom Come, I contacted eight Religious Right organizations with a simple, straightforward request to send me a copy of their group’s position on the use of torture. Only two organizations replied, and both of them defended the Bush administration’s policies on torture. None of the others, to my knowledge, has even yet condemned torture. That’s morally bankrupt. These are people who claim to be prolife, who profess to hear a 'fetal scream,' yet they turn a deaf ear to the very real screams of human beings who are being tortured in our name."