tilting at windmills
I know some (most?) of you can’t stand Ann Coulter, and I’ll admit sound bites and television appearances aren’t her strongest arena, but this recent column (thank you, Diane) by her is quite good. She uses hyperbole generously, but the points she makes through it have merit.
It touches on an area of postmodern thinking concerning ethics that I’ve had bouncing around in my head for a long time. That is the shift in ideals from doing what is right to doing what is consistent. In other words, if you remove the concept of absolute right and wrong from your view of ethics, then the highest ideal to which to ascribe becomes consistency–being “true to yourself,” in other words. If we dismiss the notion that there are concrete standards of right and wrong by which society as a whole operates, the pinnacle of ethical achievement becomes consistency. You may do things that are “good” or “bad” according to the outdated notions of absolutes, but as long as you are consistent with your own ethical code, as long as you are “true to yourself,” then you’ve succeeded. In popular culture, we hold in higher ethical esteem the flawed anti-hero with no redeeming qualities, but who lives consistently rather than the old-fashioned protagonist who struggles and stumbles in coming to terms with his inadequacies in the face of moral absolutes. How could those outdated, unfair ethical notions be so cruel to him? Shouldn’t he just be able to live however he pleases?
And what becomes the polar opposite of consistency? Hypocrisy, just as Ms. Coulter alluded to in the column: “The unstated rule is: If you’ve done it, you can’t ever criticize it.” And granted, hypocrisy is almost universally construed as wrong, even by those who believe in ethical absolutes–certainly the ultimate, convergent ideal is to do right consistently, but when given a choice which do we value more highly? Let’s allow people to change. Let’s try to discern, “Are they trying to do right?” or “Are they trying to be consistent?” If nothing else it may foster an inkling of understanding between the two sides of the ethical fence.
I think the big deal is not criticizing something one has done before.
It is not letting everyone know you had done it.
Most people don’t disclose their ‘sins.’ It is one thing to say “I have done x” and thus acknowledging in advance the potential hypocrisy and using it as a foundation for credibility (classic example: the recovered/ing drug or alcohol abuser who helps others deal with addiction).
It’s when they don’t acknowedge it honestly that it becomes a problem. That suggests cowardice and shame. Morever, it suggests they don’t care to follow their own rules and for that reason is a good hint that they don’t really believe what they are condemning is wrong — perhaps it is a hint they might be posturing for political or financial reasons.
So the trouble with Ms. Coulter’s essay, in my mind, is that she mis-states the rule. According to dictionary.com (and I think a fair definition) hypocrisy is:
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
What she is missing is the falseness. Without that, people changing or criticizing something one has themselves done is not hipocrisy.
re: Ms. Coulter’s column.
It was generally less offensive then some. I mean she did call Clinton a rapist, so it’s not pristine.
re: anti-heros
I think most of the ones I’ve encountered struggle as much as the more traditional heros. Each moral decision has to be worked out independantly rather then based on prefabricated templates. Without the shortcut of a predetermined answer, they have a chance to fully deal with complex ethical dilemas.
hmm…
Good observation…there needed to be a clarification of terms here, I think. Perhaps, though, her larger point is made within this blurring of proper “definition”? Maybe I am giving her a bit more credit than deserved.
I sent along this article more out of shared anger over current news than anything else. Although Matt has taken this in a more philosophical direction, I am more incensed by our culture’s loose adherence to any form of common sense in regards to behavior, cause and effect, etc., thus my agreement with Ann.
I know that many of the terrible things that I have experienced would not have occurred had I not been participating in activities/a lifestyle that were/was dangerous or “tacky”, as she aptly put it. I do take responsibility there. But, can I expect a culture with little to no concept of absolute truth to even be able to see that certain irresponsible behavior elicits a predictable response? If the literature that most Americans study is Maxim and Cosmo magazines then resoundingly, I say no. I believe that is the point she is making. With no anchor, what can we expect? Much, much more of the same. Tragic result of relativism.
I liked the end…quite appropriate, I think. What concept of morality can there be without the ultimate Absolute? We shrink back from saying this because of the popularity of Tolerance (an equally gross misuse of a word) and Diversity, shunning any form of judgment (although we make judgments all day long on various things, large and small). How long do we pretend we do not know and understand what Truth is? I’m happy to see Ann end with Christ. Objections are expected, persecution and disdain for Christ’s name were forewarned centuries ago, so, it is no real surprise that we (as believers) are hated and misunderstood…let the debate begin. It will assuredly end with Him. (jumping off of soapbox and running away)
***Sorry, M, for hijacking your post.
Onto my soapbox!
Unlike you and Matt, I am not a Chistian (I am most accurately an agnostic). But I will say, I agree that our culture is abandoning absolute morals and that it’s at times troubling and horrible (oooooh, I will let my politics out… like when we torture people or engage in preemptive wars!).
Where I think the trouble pops up most clearly is with the situation she starts with – rape. For so long the defense was so easly to smear the alleged victim and question her behavior and that reasulted in tremendous injustice. Even if unintentional, it encouraged women not to file legitimate charges and helped exonnerate men who should have been in prison.
So the trick becomes how to balance criticism. It is easier, in some ways, to criticize the victim. Her ‘contributions’ tend to be smaller, less alien, and more controllable. Perhaps if she had just been more wise… it wouldn’t have happened.
But our culture has decided, I think for valid historical and philisophical reasons, that whatever the unwiseness of the victim, it is more valuable to keep our eye on the greater moral sin.
I think Coulter is right that there can be some logic focusing on the unwiseness of the victim, but, in the end, I think that the culture is right and doing so is ultimately a wrong because it effectively undermines some key absolute moralities – that rape is absolutely wrong and that everyone should be able to enjoy an absolute protection from such a violation no matter how unwise they had been.
In my experience Coulter’s point is at best redundant and at worst mean-spirited. The rape victim (assuming it is real) will bludgeon herself enough about her own ‘unwiseness.’ Nor do I think that there is a tremendous persuadable audience who will appreciably change their behavior out of fear or empathy – if they were likely to do so, they probably already aren’t engaging in that unwise behavior.
Just a few things:
About admission: You and I have had a related conversation about this before. And if I may conjecture a bit, I think our earlier discussion touches on what you may have had in the back of your mind as you formulated the first part of your response here: The apparent moral arrogance of the current administration/conservative establishment.
But I agree with you and Diane–some semantics concerning the term “hypocrisy” would have been useful.
About anti-heros: But they do have a prefabricated moral template of sorts–their own precedent and experience. And in some ways it can be easier and seem more relevant than an external set of values, since it is drawn from the day-to-day, the immediate cultural context and doesn’t have to be “interpreted.” It’s the difference between someone asking him or herself, for example, “How do I feel about this situation and what have I done in the past?” and, “What does it mean to exhibit honor/sincerity/mercy/compassion in this situation?” So in my mind, rather than being a “shortcut,” an external, absolute set of moral values becomes more of a challenge in application.
I think that the culture is right and doing so is ultimately a wrong because it effectively undermines some key absolute moralities – that rape is absolutely wrong and that everyone should be able to enjoy an absolute protection from such a violation no matter how unwise they had been.
Rape is absolutely wrong in every situation and condemning it is altogether correct and right. That said, this is a point where I think you and I diverge somewhat. To me, when phrases are used like “everyone should be able to enjoy an absolute protection” it illustrates an alarming trend in society toward a “victim mentality,” in other words, that people have the right to be as irresponsible as they want and society will “clean up afterward.” The inevitable trend here, in my mind, is more legislation of the morality of the moment and taking things that should be solved on a cultural, societal level into the realm of government and politics, where, married with political power (i.e. coercion), people resent the ever-increasing amount of laws and rules even as they are ostensibly “protected from themselves” by a massive, corrupt and inefficient system. Government becomes our conscience and our babysitter. The solution, in my mind, is more personal responsbility and accountability, something Coulter calls out for in her article. Far from being redundant, it’s something that can’t be reiterated enough.
Okay. I really must do some work this morning, haha.
two replies in one!
whatever the unwiseness of the victim, it is more valuable to keep our eye on the greater moral sin
i agree with you. the absolute truth i believe in is that two wrongs don’t make a right. no matter how much you believe a woman errs in being a stripper, there is no excuse for the man who rapes her. it’s the equivalent to allowing that road rage involving shotguns is permissable because some people are asshole drivers and deserve to be shot.
Objections are expected, persecution and disdain for Christ’s name were forewarned centuries ago, so, it is no real surprise that we (as believers) are hated and misunderstood.
i don’t hate and misunderstand christans who push ‘absolute truth’. but the intolerances displayed by absolute truth christans makes me feel intolerant towards them. i far prefer the christians i know who allow that other religions could be just as correct as theirs. i have a set of very good morals and believe it or not, they don’t revolve around jesus christ. it’s possible, it’s real, and anyone who believes it can’t be has a very narrow world view.
I like Ann Coulter. I used to sit in on a poli-sci class for a blind professor and take roll/make sure people didn’t leave. I had to basically sit in front of the class while he ranted about his ultra-liberal views (don’t get me wrong I worked for him for a year and we got along very well). He told me as long as I was there and taking roll I could read or do work the rest of the time. So…I would sit in my little desk facing the students and read Ann Coulter while he spoke. Several of the students thought that was funny.
Re: two replies in one!
1) Although Matt might not tell you this, I know a thing or two about the crime in question and I can tell you, call it strong internal locus of control, whatever, I know my responsibility in that situation and the resulting consequence. There is a place for holding both the victim and perpetrator responsible, in my opinion. Of course, there are extremists on both sides of any issue and the victim would be treated as such, with the understanding that some crimes would not have occured had our societal morality not shifted. Can we ignore this fact? These particular crimes involve females (the NYC case, the Aruba case, the NC-Duke case) who were involved in high-risk behavior condoned as a “right” by our culture as liberated women. Who is going to tell our children this is a natural cause-effect relationship and we simply cannot trust that people will respect us, care for us, and not exploit us if we are drunk and wandering off alone in public? I take this very seriously. Both sides.
2)Im sorry that you feel marginalized by “absolute truth christians”, or, well, intolerant toward them. Im not sure how they presented their argument, or if it is just the insistance that Christ is the way, only way, end of story, the end. I know there are more tactful and gracious ways than most have probably presented the captial-T Truth. (and please, forgive me for the flatness of my own post here…I am not as cold as these non-emotional letters indicate!)
Fact is fact and truth is truth, regardless of what I or anyone else says. There is no way around Jesus Christ. Really. Christian or not, faith or not, His presense demands an answer. It is ok to not believe. That is free will in action, friend! But, it is not ok for a professed-believer to accept that other competing truths could possibly coexist. By nature, it is an impossibility.
Re: two replies in one!
we’ll have to agree to disagree, on both counts. :)
Re: two replies in one!
But, it is not ok for a professed-believer to accept that other competing truths could possibly coexist.
i think it is perfectly okay. it is always wise to accept the possibility of not having the only right answer, no matter what the topic in question is.
i don’t keep up with religious things anymore, but were not some of the best christian theologists and writers also doubters, simultaneously with their believing?
for matt: one more reason i respect u2/bono’s spiritual message: it’s so full of doubt while desperately hanging on to the belief.
Re: two replies in one!
(I like this conversation)
I think, and THIS would be a doubt, that it is difficult to talk of absolutes electronically while still *sounding* civil. I promise you that I am not shouting or heated…I am passionate and love my God. But, I do fight for your right not to believe.
My word choices were, perhaps, too harsh (however finding a word to express the idea is problematic). Christianity is a lot like “the religion of peace” (haha) in that you have all shades of the spectrum. The closer you get to the meat of the scripture, you unavoidably come to a crossroad of belief. There is no other way, according to scripture, than this one way. Every other belief system also has hoops, if you will, to jump through. Christianity is the only one with Grace given freely by faith in the One God (through Jesus). It is free, for a price, if that makes sense. My point is, a true follower of Christ will have to make that passage and, once over that point, it is really impossible to backtrack without becoming apostate. This is not negotiable. I am speaking directly from the scripture. Granted, there are those who claim Christ but do not (somehow, someway) read the major portions of scripture that indicate this fundamental element of the faith. Go figure. Id say its much the same with Islam. Reading the Quaran, you cannot avoid the jihad! But, many still say it is a religion of peace. Again, go figure.
What Theologians are you refering to? If you are speaking of Lewis, I beg to differ. There is a difference between healthy doubt and peddling uncertainty under the guise of Tolerance. Lewis walked through doubt in triumph. A Grief Observed is an excellent look at a man in agony over the loss of his wife and struggling with the Lord to make sense of it, coming out much more victorious in the end of his private journaling. Another, Mere Christianity. Also, you might want to check out other apologists like Ravi Zacharias, for one.
In my own walk, there have been dark times and doubtful times; bitter times and joyful times. All in all, however, I know His presense to be real and there and open-armed, regardless of HOW I was feeling in the moment. I’d also say there is a difference between doubting the divinity of Christ (as a believer) and doubting, lets say, God’s activity in one’s life. For the true believer, again, Christ’s divinity and Absolute Truth are one in the same. Not negotiable.
*I pass the baton to my better half now, take it away, Matt! Bowing out until another time…
Re: two replies in one!
Just wanted to back up this point with a Bible verse. In John 14:6, Jesus is speaking to the disciples about entering heaven when He says, “I am THE way, THE truth and THE life. No one comes to the Father except through ME.” (Emphasis added) So Jesus acknowledges that He is the one and only way to God. Although it may sound smug, taking Jesus at His Word I can’t see any way around that.
Re: I am not the better half…
guess that’s why you guys are christians and i’m an atheist.
Re: I am not the better half…
Well, in that case, I applaud you. I truly believe it takes much more of a concentrated effort to believe in nothing than in Something. In all sincerity, I wonder how that’s working for you? I seem to remember that making me very, very tired. Regardless, I do send you best wishes in that pursuit. Thank you so much for sharing your beliefs…
-Diane
Re: I am not the better half…
diane,
spiritually and emotionally, it’s working quite well for me. i do miss the sense of community one gets from identifying with a denomination. i grew up in a church, so i know the feeling of having a built-in place to belong. that place is harder to find when you’re a minority. (skeptics clubs tend to be way too cynical for me – i’m an optimistic humanist, not an anarchist. in a club of atheists, i would like to talk about philosophy, not spend the time ripping christianity up. it’s surprisingly hard to find a good community.)
otherwise, i appreciate the peace i have now. i found pretending to believe tiring. it caused me great anxiety to go to church every sunday and sit among people feeling like a lier and a fake. there was a point where i was desperate to believe, just so i could fit in and feel the certainty everyone around me seemed to feel. but my sense of the larger world (and universe) wouldn’t let me buy into christianity, or even organized religion in general.
finding the point where i could say, “you know, i don’t have to be someone i’m not,” was one of the most freeing experiences of my life. it was agonizing to get there; i have always been one to do what is expected of me, and it was expected i be a christian (i was so good at it! i was a leader and an example to my youth group!). but letting it go was followed by an extreme certainty that i’d made the right choice. i suppose i believe there is nothing out there (but gravity and space matter) as strongly as you believe there is. i don’t find it scary or a point of unanchoring. i find it motivating. it makes me want to do the right thing, because if we don’t as fellow humans, who will? no one is going to come and clean up our mess, we have to do it ourselves! my motivation to be a steward of the earth has increased tenfold, and my appreciation of my time on earth as well, as there will be nothing else.
~lindsey
Re: I am not the better half…
Lindsey, good to have a name for the, er, face? haha. About your latest, I think we might have more religious similarities than not!
I, too, was a youth intern at the very same church I grew up in. However, prior to that, I was more of the optimistic humanist amidst my slanderous anti-God, anti-religious counterparts. Regardless, that didn’t stop my little Ayn Rand-loving self from hating the religion I was raised on. I was sick of the striving. I was too artistic for these people and I was so tired, tired, tired of being the cheerleading Baptist girl. I felt absolutely free on my own. Well, until I didn’t (feel that way). In search of security, I went back. Typical story. Instead of figuring out what God wanted, I fell right back into line with what i felt the church wanted, became Staff, so on. Retrospectively, I know that we can be strivers in both worlds…strivers for self, strivers in the name of Christianity. I can’t imagine that pleases Him, He who gives so freely. Just because it “feels” effortless, or “feels” like work, does not make it right or wrong, good or bad, truth or error. There must be a plumb-line…a litmus test…a measuring tool. When humans test and approve their own lives based on their own devices and experiences we have nothing but relativity (I just imagine a bunch of toddlers deciding whether or not they wanted to walk around on a busy intersection, or something) Thus, we circle back to the issue of absolutes, I think.
Above point being, the entire work of Christ is based on His sufficiency alone. We have no real strength on our own, in church or out. There are no “good Christians”. We just trust (because He prompts us to try) and He gives us more strength (grace). This is another elemental facet of the faith in that it is never, ever, ever us. All our good intentions come to naught without His grace. And, His grace extends to all of us, christian and otherwise. This is how we live and move and have our being. He just wants for us to acknowledge Him as the giver.
Now that I see Him as the author and finisher of all things (which I once hated the thought of and feared for lack of control), I am free to be a good steward (as you said) and empowered to take care of this earth, my body, my loved ones. This is common grace, in that, He gives us all the strength and conscience to do what is generally “good”, to see and appreciate beauty, and have the desire to do so, although He gives us the will to do otherwise.
Btw, the point at which I was an intern, etc, isnt the end of the story. I left the church…and had a child…and, well, life changed in a matter of nine months.
Im so glad to have met you. I want to hear more!