Is religion the source of all evil? Including my unhappiness?

This is a reaction to Hal’s comments on the protestant work ethic (PWE). The comments turn out to revolve around a different topic altogether toward the end, but without creating a laundry list of answers; I’ll start at the top.

Hal suggests, referring to the PWE: “we should know that this theory is not only morally reprehensible… it is also incorrect.” Well, I for one am a protestant and certainly reprehensible, but I have no morals. Perhaps for this reason, I fail to see what is morally reprehensible about the theory – especially the use of the theory to discuss possible paths of development (which is, after all, all our classmate did). To suggest instead that religion gets in the way of human development would seem morally reprehensible to many (millions of people, I’m sure), but it is nonetheless a proposition which we have to make to investigate the origins of development – controversial as it quite clearly is. If we were, as scholars, to refrain from what to some seems morally reprehensible, there would be no forum for Hal to write such a post. Although I don’t agree with the greater part of it, it furthers the debate.

I am not learned on the Bible. But I take Hal’s word for it: if you were to read it word by word you COULD read it the way he does. Clearly each man and certainly each division within Christianity reads the bible in each their way – thus their different divisions. Weber, even though I am more inclined to believe his reading more than my own, had his own reading. My point is this: you can reject a reading of the bible because you read it differently. That’ll hold up in church, but it won’t hold up amongst scholars. It is an incomplete argument.

But I want to quickly move away from the Bible, because the PWE has less to do with the way the authors of the Bible worded it (or the translators). Whereas the PWE existed at one point amongst many in that format, it has become so much more than that. Let’s assume that religion affects culture, and vice versa (cause otherwise the sociologists come after us), then need the PWE exist only in the church? The answer seems to be no. Indeed, most will tell you that the work ethic permeated European culture in many places, and as religion has declined, the work ethic may not have in the same way.

Also, is it inconceivable that the pursuit for something other than wealth will make you rich? The work ethic in northern Europe is frequently cited (though, I have seen no studies) as the reason why hundreds of thousands of people go to work every day even though their salary is less than what unemployment would amount to? It is one of the reasons why welfare can function so efficiently there. The welfare system would be ruined – and many thousands of people with it (who are out of the job to no fault of their own and because inflationary pressures means that there is such a thing as “healthy unemployment” for a country). The pursuit for wealth – or greediness – of everyone (and yes, I am just as greedy as anyone else) above all, could in fact be anti-wealth.

Furthermore, I think the argument is flawed because it is based on a single assumption: that progress is the generation of wealth. Hal writes: “Christianity, especially Christianity which stems directly from scripture, is anti-wealth and prosperity”.  The biggest mistake, I think, is to equate “anti-wealth and prosperity”. Look up prosperous – it needs not equate wealthy. Synonyms are flourishing, thriving and triumphant, while antonyms are depressed and unsuccessful. They can all connote success in wealth generation, but they can also all connote success in other aspects of life. Like, for example, feeling fulfilled as a person because you work virtuously – the fact that it may not generate wealth does not make you any less prosperous in the actual meaning of the word. Though, Hal’s use of prosperity assumes that to live a fulfilling life we must generate wealth.

Hal goes on to argue: “All churches want their sheep to be poor and unlearned.” If anything, THAT is morally reprehensible. The controversy does not lie in his claim that some churches wish power over the adherents, nor even that he says “all”. Many others have made these claims. No, what is offensive is the use of “sheep” because the inevitable meaning must be that those of us who go to the church do so as subjects of repression. Can no adherent to Christianity be a truly free individual and chose to go to church?

Also, I’d like to invite you all to circuit the churches and city halls of America. Where are you most likely to find a homeless getting a meal? Where are you most likely to find a pro-bono lawyer offering legal advice? Where are you most likely to get a bed at night? If your answer is “City Hall”, I promise you, you live in a truly unique place. To suggest that churches across the board, and across time, are power machines with no care for those who attend them is simply offensive.    

All in the same boat, aren't we?

So, a thought occurred to me while I watched the Republican response to Obama's State of the Union (which I didn't see, so I won't judge). The speaker - a former governor of Indiana, I think - was talking about Obama's record of pitting one part of the American people up against another. But, the speaker says, "we're all in the same boat", pointing to the fact that Americans are all in a crisis and we need to get out of it together.

Though an adept metaphor, he did leave out a small detail that nagged me a little: we might all be in the same boat, but while the one percent are dining with the captain on the bridge, forty million poor Americans are the ones rowing the (damn) boat, and the lower middle class are the ones serving up the extravagant feast on the bridge.

Should we make sure they have benefits - like the occasional pothole for a breath of fresh air? Or, a chance to see - much less decide - where the boat might be heading? I don't think so. Then who'd row the boat? Fancy seeing the captain try to return home when we've got nothing but countervailing winds wherever we look? No, you better return to your position at the oar.

BUT, FOR THE 50% at the bottom: fear not! So long as you're on the boat, you can dine with the captain, because through hard labor everything is possible. Never mind that most people on the bridge would rather spend their money keeping you off the bridge, than they would spend their money to expand the amount of people who'd fit at the table. And never mind that we're in such a hurry to make you row faster that we'd rather neglect your sustenance in the long term to see the boat sail a little faster in the short term.

Until your day of success, though, be happy that we let you row the boat.

P.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

COW(ard) DIEM

Sitting in class today, a strange thing occurred to me: Whatever was said about comparative advantage, geographic advantage and factor pricing, Europeans are a little odd. Rather than swear by sound economics evidence, we’d rather swear by the cow. And I mean that quite literally. European countries often come off as big proponents of the developed world helping the developing world. However, that’s only true until the subject lands on…. well, cows (and a lot other but much less offensive and interesting things). For good measure (and as an excuse for posting this picture), I want to make sure we all know I am talking of an actual cow. One of these:

The European Union and individual countries within the union, subsidize Europeans cows to an almost unimaginable extent. In fact, Europe spends $1 billion per day. That’s half an American stimulus package a year, spent on subsidizing cows (well, in reality we subsidize farmers who raise cattle)! To put it into perspective, that’s about $2.20 per cow, per day. If you are familiar with the World Bank’s poverty line, you’ll know that it is well above the absolute poverty line. In fact, according to this report from the bank, in 2005 2.561 billion people lived for less than $2 a day. Twenty two of the world’s countries don’t even have minimum wages that high – not to speak of the nonexistent minimum wage in every informal sector around the world. According to a New York Times opinion piece, if Europeans stopped subsidizing its cows (or managed agriculture better), it could pull 140 million of those in absolute poverty out of the misery. I don’t mean to offend anyone, but you have to be a cow to not figure out what’s the right move. At the very least, if Europeans don’t manage to rectify this, we are a bunch of cowards.

                But what are we so afraid of? It’s not like the cows will strike and leave us without meat and cheese (because that would cause real trouble). It’s not like the farmers will strike either. If they do, we’ll have the opportunity to buy American, Argentinian or some other delicious meat, or maybe we’d develop a taste for camel milk. What might be a consequence are lower cattle production and more expensive cheese, but the outcome might be quite favorable: there would be free land everywhere across Europe. In a time of food crisis that might not be such a bad thing; according to some estimates, whereas one hectare of land can support 2 persons per year when used to raise cattle, that same space can be used to grow corn, wheat or better yet rice and yield enough food to feed 20 people. I’m pro letting the market take care of the allocation of farm land – if people are willing to pay 10 times more for meat calories than they are carbohydrate calories. But we shouldn’t eat more meat because some special interest group somewhere believes it to be in the welfare of farmers that we pay their cows more than we are willing to donate to the developing world. Those who benefit are a very narrow group of farmers in Europe who are afraid that their industry will collapse if we don’t collectively pay for them to maintain their lifestyle.

It is not just about cows, of course. Corn and cotton in the US are similarly protected, and it should be common knowledge that some African nations would be lining up to supply cotton at market rates if they were allowed to compete with American growers. It is worth it to keep in mind that not only is the cost of subsidy put on domestic consumers, but more often than not, what we do to keep a few comfortable at home, could keep scores more comfortable abroad.  

She loves me... she loves me not: Should we, should we not, impose sanctions on Iran?

As Iran seems to increasingly pressure other countries into a stand-off, I can’t help but be somewhat perplexed; closing the Strait of Hormuz where a lot of the world’s oil passes through will surely prompt an answer from many countries around the world. The roster for countries willing to impose sanctions on Iran, if not engage in an armed re-take, is sure to be long. For many countries, there is no other way; given the current economic situation rising oil prices would help kill some of the industries which already struggle. But how can Iran afford it? A few other questions occur to me as I speculate about the answer:

·         To what extent are economic sanctions even effective? Would a partial shutdown of transactions between many western countries and Iran be enough to discourage Iran from asserting force in the Strait? Are there some good examples of “successful” economic sanctions?

·         The basic gist of economic sanctions would be to disrupt an economy by limiting its access to the outside world. But, two things should make that difficult in Iran: Iran is a major exporter of oil and Russia/China would likely line up to get it at a discount when Western countries boycott it (while prices would in fact go up from other investors, passing some of the cost unto the sanctioning countries). More so, Iran has been under sanctions – on and off – for a long, long time (1979 for the US!). To what extent would the Iranian economy even be very responsive to sanction pressures? So long as China, Russia, Venezuela and more keep their economies open to Iran, it will have a market – for a good that surely will be bought.

·         Does Iran have industries which would be profoundly affected? Oil account for a majority of Iran’s income, and the “religious services industry” accounts for a pretty significant chunk as well. Are sanctions then best executed in freezing assets abroad? But surely, Iran figured out not to save its money in the West?

What could be a better approach, if not economic sanctions? Do we press for economic sanctions because that is the best tool we have available to us?

Looking around for opinions, it seems like we might as well pull the petals of a Zardkooh flower, hoping to discover the right answer when the last petal remains.