BIAS AND PREJUDICE IN THE PRESS : NO STORY IS EVER SIMPLE

AN ESSAY

I read the New York Post for two main reasons. First and foremost, it makes me laugh. The headlines are just flat-out funny. Its staff writes in a nasty, even satirical style to mock celebrities and other visible, well-off folks (invisible tycoons are different story because they are not visible). It also covers local New York City stories quite well. In all these ways, the Post is "populist:" It provides a laugh while dispensing relatively accurate local news.

Still, I read the Post for a second reason: To understand my intellectual opponents. While the Post's generic local coverage is populist and funny, its editorial spirit is neither populist nor funny. In fact, it is terrifyingly biased. That's not to say that the Post is any more biased than another newspaper. Every newspaper has a distinct perspective. But the Post's perspective is extremely right-wing. Bill O'Reilly writes columns in the Opinion section. 'Nuff said.

I like getting my news from as many sources as possible. I understand that human sense does not permit me to directly perceive too much in the world. So I turn to second-hand reporting to fill in the gaps. And because second-hand reporting necessarily reflects the bias of those who perceive things, I expect bias when I read newspapers.

For me, reading the news is as much about learning competing arguments as it is about learning "facts." As a philosophical matter, I have difficulty even understanding what a "fact" is, especially when I have no first-hand knowledge about the matter in issue. News reporting purports to relay "just facts." But in reality, its "facts" reflect interpretation and bias as much as any objective "truth." In that light, I suspect every fact I read in a newspaper. The only things I can confidently learn are the newspaper's biases and arguments.

And what luscious biases I find in the Post. To be fair, all American newspapers espouse a particularly virulent bias against Islam. But the Post takes shortsighted prejudice to a fantastic extreme. For almost a decade now, Americans have wondered why "Muslim extremists" attacked the United States on 9/11. I have always known why: Because Western commercial values--which treasure earthly existence over all things--clash fundamentally with Muslim teachings--which eschew earthly success for spiritual success. The fact that Western powers have long encroached on Muslim territory for commercial gain brings this tension in values to confrontation. In essence, the struggle between the West and Islam is a struggle between competing views of human existence: One grossly secular; the other grossly religious. Both are anathema to one another. Misunderstanding and acrimony are inevitable.

But you won't find that analysis in any American newspaper. Rather, you'll find self-righteous odes to the American way over the Muslim way. It's a colossal exercise in "us vs. them." No newspaper makes an effort to see the debate from the Muslim perspective. Heavens no; that would be treasonous. Instead, American newspapers--especially the Post--fan resentment against the "mortal Muslim enemy" by exulting American values over Muslim ones. In the process, they cast difficult questions in a simplistic light, using prejudice and stereotypes distort reality.

Consider two recent Post articles that illustrate these tactics at work. In the first, the Post reports about a Muslim man who fled the FBI, leading agents on a 90 MPH chase through Queens that culminated in a crash and foot chase on the Bronx-Whitestone Bridge. See N.Y. Post, Bridge 'Terror' Thug's Allah Cry, Jan. 9, 2010 at 5. The article says that the man--Adis Medunjanin--was a "high school acquaintance" of Najibullah Zazi, the New York student arrested last year for hoarding drugstore hydrogen peroxide in an alleged effort to build a bomb. Id. The FBI staked out his home for months. Finally, Medunjanin just left the house and ran. According to the report, he "praised Allah" in Arabic shortly before striking a car on the bridge. The report also claims he said: "We love death more than you love life!" in Arabic. Id. Finally, it says that authorities first merely charged him with leaving the scene of an accident. Later, they added terror-related charges. Id.

It is not clear how anyone heard these statements. The article does not say how FBI agents could hear what Medunjanin was saying in the instant before he crashed his car. It is also not clear under what circumstances he said "we love death more than you love life."

What is the net effect here? In short, the report leads the uncritical reader to assume that Medunjanin is a terrorist because he "said things in Arabic" and because he praised Allah. These are gross stereotypes. After all, what does the neutral evidence show here? It shows that Medunjanin was a high school acquaintance of a terror suspect six years ago. There is no evidence that they interacted with each other since that time. The FBI surveilled Medunjanin for months. Presumably, they also wiretapped him. The article does not divulge what the FBI may have heard in those wiretaps. All we know is that Medunjanin fled and crashed his car after saying something in Arabic about Allah, life and death. Those details suffice to brand him a terrorist.

That is bias at its worst.

What about presuming people innocent in the United States? What about fairness? How can Medunjanin escape the stigma that will now follow him? I find all these things unfortunate. After all, we are talking about a criminal prosecution for terrorism. That carries severe penalties. Yet the Post here gave Medunjanin an unfair trial before he was even arraigned. In so doing, it revealed the pernicious American bias that pervades our media: It made him a terrorist because he spoke Arabic, had a Muslim name, mentioned Allah and knew a suspected terrorist six years ago.

But is this the only conclusion to draw from the evidence? Perhaps Medunjanin simply "lost it" after being surveilled without reason for so long. And how do we know what he said in the car before he crashed? What if he said something in English, rather than Arabic? Would that have made a difference? What if he had said: "Oh shit, I'm about to crash" in Arabic? Would that still make him a terrorist? Who knows. All I know is that no one ever reports on these difficult questions in the American press--and especially not the Post.

In the second article, the Post again espouses its virulent prejudice toward Muslims. See N.Y. Post, How Did 'Undy Bomber' Get a Visa? Jan. 9, 2010 at p. 19. Columnist Michelle Malkin takes the opportunity to both generalize about Muslims and castigate the Obama administration for not spotting Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab before his failed bomb attack on Christmas Day.

Malkin argues that U.S. consular officials should never issue "coveted entrance pass[es]" to "globe-trotting, Nigerian-born nomad[s]" who "buy tickets in cash" without "checking in much baggage." Id. Later, she adds that "unmarried, rootless Muslim male nomads" should never receive U.S. visas, either.

Leaving the practical problems associated with Malkin's consular formula to one side, I find it appalling that she recommends a Federal policy based on invidious religious and ethnic stereotypes. After all, Malkin says that "Muslim male nomads" should not be allowed into the United States. Neither should "Nigerian-born" nomads, or "rootless" people, or "globe-trotters," or "unmarried people" or "people who fly with little baggage." These are not workable standards. And they are certainly not standards to which the United States should subscribe, a country that has always prided itself on diversity and equality. It would be awkward at best for the U.S. State Department to advertise America's openness to the world by saying: "Come one, come all…unless you're Muslim, a nomad, unmarried or Nigerian-born."

Hell, I'm unmarried, I fly with little baggage and I sometimes globe-trot to Europe. I shouldn't get a visa, either. Imagine if I was Nigerian: I'd really be in trouble.

In short, Malkin wants prejudice on a governmental scale. Yet her anti-Muslim views find strong support in the Post. Although Malkin's position is extreme, her basic bias against Muslims finds constant expression throughout the American press. In that light, I wonder why the Arab world casts a suspicious eye on America? Could it be that its media routinely mocks them and judges them as terrorists before the fact? I wonder.

We will not solve the tensions between the Muslim world and the West until we stop viewing Muslims as one-dimensional villains. The problems between the Muslim world and the West are understandable. We must merely examine the sharp contrast between the two value systems to see why problems persist. Unfortunately, newspapers do not like talking about value systems. Newspapers do not analyze values; they simply voice them. But the confrontation between the West and the Muslim world will continue until the West tries to understand why its values contrast so strongly with Muslim values.

Sadly, I do not think that's going to happen any time soon. Stubborn self-righteousness inheres in Western thought. And I think the West would rather fight a permanent war against a religion-based civilization than deign to comprehend it.

A SHORT BREAK, AND A WORD ON TERRORISM IN THE PRESS

Today I am flying to London to meet some old friends. I will be back on Monday and hopefully will have the strength to write by Tuesday. It is unusual for me to take breaks from posting. Normally I post everyday, with some exceptions. If you do not see anything popping up on the blog until next week, you know the reason. Never fear; I am still here, and I have plenty more issues to discuss when I sit back down to write.

I am looking forward to my trip. Traveling always refreshes me, especially when I travel to Europe. Maybe it's my ancestry kicking in. I just feel at home there. Although I am a little worried about the food (mutton, jelly doughnuts, liver salad, sausage rolls, fried fish filets, "chips" and "crisps"), I am most enthusiastic about the ales.

Before I leave, I must mention one thing I saw in the New York Times today. Apparently, the New York Police Department foiled a plot to bomb two Jewish synagogues in the Bronx. For almost a year, an informant infiltrated a group of four black American Muslims, one of whom was born in Afghanistan. During the investigation, the informant discovered that these four men "wanted to do something to America." But they had no resources, no contacts and no money. They did not even speak Arabic and had never left American soil. They simply "wanted" to be terrorists, even though they were just four poor angry black guys from New York. The informant secured some fake explosives for them, and even said he could help them obtain Stinger missiles so they could shoot down military aircraft in upstate New York. After the ill-informed conspirators planted the fake bombs outside the synagogues, the FBI moved in and arrested them all. No one was harmed. The bombs were inert.

Revealingly, the police did not even call these would-be martyrs "terrorists." Rather, they called them "petty criminals." I found this interesting. After all, America defines itself against terrorism. During the Bush era, America took perverse strength from this artificial duality. After all, life is much simpler when there is one black and one white, and the "America/Terrorist" distinction made all political analysis breathtakingly simple. It was utterly nonsensical, of course, but that's not the point. The point is that senior people in our government actually believed it. They believed that Americans were "white/good" and Terrorists were "black/evil." You can't get any worse than a "terrorist." Good versus evil. Luke versus Darth Vader. Who can misunderstand that?

But according to the NYPD, these guys were not even "terrorists." Ironically, I guess they were not good enough--or scary enough--to earn the title. After all, they were just a bunch of dumb "urban" guys who thought (stupidly) they had found free explosives. In a strange way, the whole "America/Terrorist" dichotomy actually dignifies terrorists in the sense that they must be "really good at being evil" to fall into the "terrorist" category. In other words, you need to be really good at what you do to be a "terrorist." Americans will only fear you if you are a "terrorist." They will take you seriously if you are a "terrorist." But if you are just a "petty criminal," Americans will laugh at you and call you stupid. They will not quake with fear. You do not deserve the imposing label "terrorist."

Yet how ironic is this? Aren't all terrorists supposed to be irretrievably bad, evil and worthless? You shouldn't be able to say that terrorists are "good" in any way, right? Perhaps not. According to public rhetoric, as here, you must be a really scary--and effective--criminal to qualify as a terrorist. You actually must have some skill, merit and ability to be an American arch-enemy. But if you are just a bumbling 25-year-old black guy from Brooklyn with an adopted Muslim name who says: "I want to do something to America," you are a mere "petty criminal." These guys "didn't make the cut." They were just inept "petty criminals," not ruthless, skilled "terrorists." They just weren't good enough to be "terrorists." If there were a terrorism job fair, these guys would not have even gotten an interview.

America's rhetoric about terrorism exposes even more thematic inconsistencies. In discussing the charges against these "dumb bombers," New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said: "This is a serious matter. They were planning on committing jihad (emphasis added)." I do not know Arabic, but I know from watching Fox News that jihad means "holy war." We hear it all the time. Muslims have fought jihad for centuries, both to expand and to defend their religion. Christians, too, have waged "holy wars" to expand and defend their religion (The Crusades; The Thirty Years' War; The Spanish Armada, etc). It is not a concept unique to Islam. Yet this is precisely what American rhetoric about terrorism would have us believe.

Here, the issue is not whether only Muslims fight for religion. The issue is the patronizing way in which America characterizes Islam. In this example, Commissioner Kelly--a police chief discussing criminal charges--says that the suspects wanted to "commit jihad." In English idiom, the verb "commit" always accompanies crimes. Men "commit" murder. They "commit" robbery. They "commit" rape. But jihad expresses the concept "holy war." It is not a common crime. It implies an abiding religious motivation. No statute forbids "armed action intended to defend the Muslim religion." In fact--in the Muslim understanding--jihad is a mandatory religious exercise against hostile forces; it is not a crime at all. Although its practical effects may give rise to crimes under American law, it really does not fit in the usual language about "everyday offenses." Yet Commissioner Kelly used the word "jihad" in the way he would describe any other crime. In this sense, he completely marginalized Islam and equated it with petty criminality. He might as well have said: "These men wanted to commit Islam."

I think this is significant. We still live with the inane "America/Terrorist" distinction even under Obama. Until America starts trying to understand why Muslims--both here and abroad--might have a problem with American policies and attitudes, we can expect more resentment, more violence and more "terror." George W. Bush shoehorned complicated issues into an unrealistic, fanciful "good versus evil" dichotomy. In so doing, he inflicted immense philosophical and conceptual damage on America's international reputation. Exploiting ignorance and passion after 9/11, he drew fictitious lines and stubbornly took sides. But religious strife and international disputes demand subtle explanation and genuine understanding, not blustering self-righteousness. Our problems have not disappeared since 9/11. If anything, they have worsened. The fact that there has not been another major attack does not prove that the Muslim world now "loves America." In my view, we still have a long way to go. After all, our public officials are still referring to traditional Muslim practices as "crimes."

Yet this is the absolutist path down which Bush led us. It will take time to correct the damage. It will take time to remember that black is not always black, nor is white always white. It may have been easy to think that there was "good" and "evil" in the world for a few years, but our delusion merely made the problems worse.

Contrary to all expectations, America does not yet have a monopoly on truth or virtue. Nor does it have a right to criticize other countries for waging religious wars, especially after the revelations last week that President Bush received weekly briefing books about the Iraq War inscribed with biblical quotations. If anything, we have a strong claim on the world monopoly for hypocrisy. And until we start selling our stake in that monopoly, we can expect more international strife.

WHY WE FIGHT : IS IT REALLY ALL ABOUT THE MONEY?

AN ESSAY

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the distinction between “principle” and “expediency.” I identified commerce with “expediency” because “success in business” requires the ability to adapt fluidly to changing circumstances, even if that means resorting to unsavory tactics. In contrast, I identified “principle” with the adjectives “honorable” and “noble” because a person wins “honor” by adhering to principles, even when circumstances tempt him to abandon them. Principles, in other words, provide vibrancy and meaning beyond mere commercial success. Principles are ideas that transcend everyday economic pressures. They represent notions that we consider good, no matter the climate. We are “noble” and “honorable” when we advance principles. And we are “dishonorable” and “unethical” when we discard them for commercial reasons. In closing, I noted that I preferred honor over expediency because I did not like the American program for “success,” which largely involves “expediency” over “principle.” I said: “Give me something to believe in and I will work hard for it.”

Principles have broad thematic appeal. They represent ideas larger than our lives and our petty financial obligations. In history and literature, “honorable men” live on in our collective memory, not commercially successful men who just “went with the program.” We remember Abraham Lincoln because he believed in a “liberty principle” and died for it. We remember Thomas More because he believed in a “conscience principle” and he died for it. And more generally, we remember America’s Founders because they fought a Revolution to advance principles. Although the Framers also had a commercial interest in separating from Great Britain, they undoubtedly believed in larger principles, such as natural human rights, free speech and representative government. They risked high treason to realize their principles. If they had been caught, they would have faced the most grisly criminal penalties imaginable. And they knew the risk.

When men follow principle, history remembers them. They may not be successful—indeed, many die in the effort or otherwise live wretched, poverty-stricken lives—but they live on after death because principles transcend individual existence. On the other hand, those who follow the “expedient” path may achieve every success during their lives, but few remember them. For example, how many wealthy bankers lived during Gandhi’s time? True, Gandhi achieved some measure of fame and wealth later in his life, but does anyone remember the wealthy, successful people who lived in his town? No. They lived unremarkable lives, even though they had money, power and success. Larger principles did not animate them; they simply wanted to “go with the commercial flow,” make money, raise children, live comfortably then die. They did what was necessary to achieve those unremarkable goals, and they died unremarkably.

Commerce demands expediency. And expediency renders us unremarkable. There is always a contrast between men who live for principle and those who live for commerce. In literature, we read lines such as: “He did it for more than money,” or “He fought for something better.” These are striking statements, because most people only do things for money; it is memorable when they do not. When a person does something for non-commercial reasons, his behavior attracts notice. He has other motivations. He might have principles. He inspires others because he rises above the crass demands of daily earning and paying. He even risks his own bodily comfort and status in order to realize his principles. He refuses to take the expedient path, even if it leads to his ruin. Others notice this and they admire it. In most cases, the man fails. But when he succeeds—even through his death—he lives on in memory as a person who was “not like the rest of us.” After all, “the rest of us” just want to get a job, earn a wage, eat, sleep, go on vacation once in a while and avoid aging. This is commercial existence. It draws strength from bodily comfort and pleasure. But the principled man draws satisfaction from larger ideals. That is why others remember him.

People admire principles, yet few follow them in every case. It is too risky and too costly. If a person believes on principle that the free market economy is evil, he should refuse to get a job within that system. Yet if he refuses, he starves and goes homeless. If he truly adhered to his principle, he would choose the difficult consequences that flow from it. But few—if any—do. Nonetheless, men such as Karl Marx believed in this principle and they took steps to further it. History remembers these men, even if many reject their principles. They had the daring and courage to believe in larger ideals and advance them, risking their own lives and comfort in the process. They did not merely drift from day to day following conventional rules and adapting their behavior to make money. They lived for their ideas. That is what separated them from the rest.

Those who follow principle attract positive attention because only a few people dare to break from commercial expediency. Yet at the same time, they attract negative attention because many abhor their beliefs. We remember Marx because he believed in ideas that upended the free market economy. But we also remember Marx because other people utterly despised his principles and fought to crush them. Every principle reflects strong, individual belief. At the same time, every strong belief engenders strong reactions from those who do not share it. Interestingly, principles invite conflict between those who adhere to them and those who find them threatening to “the order.” On the one hand, there are “believers” who are willing to die for larger ideals. On the other hand, there are “reactionaries” who do not like the principle and believe it will make their comfortable lives more complicated. In many cases, the “reactionaries” are people who follow conventional lives rooted in commerce. They do not want disturbances. Thus, they violently react against others who believe in “disturbing principles.”

Yet who really remembers reactionaries? Throughout history, revolutionaries, visionaries, martyrs and radicals have introduced new principles. They gave their lives for those principles. Who took their lives? The reactionaries. In hindsight, we can call the radicals “honorable” because they refused to abandon their principles even when they stood to lose everything. But can we call the reactionaries “honorable” for squashing ideas that threatened their commercial comfort? We remember men who fought for bold, new principles. We do not remember the men who fought to suppress them. In virtually every case, reactionaries come from social classes that are content with the current order. No one remembers them because they simply fought for “business as usual;” and there is nothing memorable about “business as usual.” In other words, no one remembers people who simply fight for commerce. When people “fight for the money,” they might win. But their memory swiftly fades after their victory.

Why exactly do men fight? Men will always fight, but for what reasons? And what reasons motivate them the most? Reactionaries fight to maintain the existing order against what they consider to be “dangerous new principles.” Yet throughout history, men have fought for much less compelling reasons. They have fought for women, as the Greeks did at Troy. They have fought for land and resources, as did the Crusaders in the Middle Ages and as the American pioneers did in the 19th Century. They have fought for personal loyalty, as the medieval knights did for their feudal lords. They have fought to discover treasure, as did the Spanish conquistadors in Mexico and South America. They have fought for trade rights, as did virtually every European power during colonial times in North America, Africa and Asia. Finally, men have always fought as mercenaries, taking cash payment to shed blood for anyone who can pony up the price.

Yet did men fight with genuine vigor for these reasons? What principles did they advance? To merely win land, money, women, treasure and trade rights? Viewed largely, those are not very compelling prizes. In my view, men fight more vigorously when they fight for more abstract ideals than mere commercial gain. For example, the early Muslims conquered the Middle East, North Africa, Portugal and Spain because they believed in Mohammed’s religious teachings. They were not fighting for gold, land or women. The American colonies fought against England for “human rights” and “liberty from tyranny.” Later, revolutionary France fought for enlightened principles such as liberty, equality and brotherhood. These were ideas in which men could strongly believe, even if they brought no tangible economic benefit. The Russians and Chinese fought to establish communist governments committed to a new economic order. And during the 20th Century, virtually every major power fought for “nationalistic” reasons premised upon the idea that every Nation has its own unique values, territory, language, traditions, culture and power.

Men fight more vigorously for principles than they do for money. Principles transcend. While every man must overcome economic adversity to survive in our commercial world, there is nothing grandiose about fighting for commerce. But there is something grandiose about fighting for equality, religious belief, brotherhood, fairness, justice, national pride or freedom. There is nothing expedient about these motivations; they motivate men precisely because they transcend expediency. They stand for something more than commercial success. Yet when men fight for commercial gain, they appear somehow undignified, cheap and ignoble. That is why almost everyone despises mercenaries; they have no principles. They take motivation solely from the wage they receive. They do not care about the ideas for which either side fights; they are just “doing it for the money.” In conflicts between men, however, principles are real. When a third-party intervenes for commercial reasons, they attract mordant resentment. That is why mercenaries receive no quarter on the battlefield. Just ask the American “contractors” who found themselves burned and hung from a bridge in Iraq. The Iraqis knew that those men were in their country for a price, not to advance principles. They rightly held them in contempt. Any American would have done the same to a foreign mercenary fighting in an American conflict on American soil. In fact, the Iraqi insurgents have a compelling principle: To eject a foreign invader from their country. They have no financial interest in this; it is pure principle.

Conflict inheres in human existence. Not everyone has access to the same resources or the same opportunities. There will always be inequalities in wealth, status and power. There will always be some successful people and many more unsuccessful ones. Commerce regulates this social order. In peacetime, men either win in commerce or they lose. They compete with each other. They want to make money and move ahead. Yet as they compete, they constantly must weigh expediency against principle. Why do they act? Do they act merely to move ahead? Are they just “doing it for the money?” If they are, do they feel good about it? At the end of the day, principles implicate individual, subjective belief. When a man believes in principle, he gives voice to his individuality. Yet when he “adapts” to meet commercial demands, he suppresses his beliefs in order to please superior powers. Success, then, depends in part upon suppression and surrender. On the other hand, principle defines. We remember those who fight for principles because they make a mark beyond mere commerce. They identify themselves through their beliefs. They may never achieve success, but when they do things for reasons other than money, they break from the mass. And we notice them, even if we detest their beliefs.

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

ARE YOU A FINANCIAL CHRIST?

Christian churches frighten me for many reasons because they are human institutions. As a cynic, I have deep suspicions about most human motives, and because churches are human organizations, I am suspicious of them. Human institutions--like human beings themselves--are imperfect. They are subject to all the vice and selfishness that worldly life engenders. Many religious principles, on the other hand, are pure abstractions. They exist wholly apart from everyday human weakness. They are ideas. Human beings embrace ideas, but they are beholden to so many other pressures that ideas typically fade into insignificance. "Great men" hold to their ideas and principles more than the average man. The average man simply answers his circumstances so as best to avoid bodily or mental discomfort. While that may lead to an easy life, there is nothing exciting about it. It is forgettable. To cope in this world, you have to be "flexible." That means you have to be willing to abandon aspirations, ideas and principles when it is necessary to maintain your comfort level. "Great men" refuse to do this, and they suffer for it. They may not lead comfortable lives, but they are not forgotten.

Jesus Christ was a "great man" from a historical perspective. Whether we believe he is the Son of God is irrelevant on this point. His ideas and principles have shaped Western civilization for millennia. And--textually speaking--his ideas and principles are remarkably attractive. Jesus believed in universal love, tolerance and respect for every individual. He preached in the value of human dignity in all circumstances. He believed that mankind was inherently good and could achieve salvation through faith. He believed that God loved every individual equally and that worldly society was unjust (ie, "My Kingdom is not of this world."). He taught his followers to eschew violence by "loving their enemies" and "turning the other cheek." Thematically, these are beautiful abstractions. They are pure principles, and according to the New Testament, Jesus died for them. He refused to be "flexible." He did not "sell" his beliefs in order to avoid bodily discomfort.

More to the point, Jesus assumed bodily suffering in order to save humanity, including people who killed him. He was willing to give his own blood to guarantee a better life for everyone else. Again, these are noble, beautiful sentiments. Unadulterated selflessness rarely appears in our modern world, and that is why Jesus' sacrifice seems so incredible to us. After all, who among us today would yield his bodily comfort to save a stranger? Indeed, who among us would even be willing to lose money to save another? As a cynic, I am tempted to say that no one would do this. People may give their lives to save loved ones (soldiers regularly die to save their comrades in battle; parents may die to save their children), but I wonder whether a person today would yield his life to save a stranger.

As a general matter, I am a secularist. I believe that reason and human sense can answer many practical questions about human existence. But I am fully aware that there are innumerable questions that human sense cannot verify. I cannot verify with my senses, for example, whether God exists. By the same token, I cannot verify with my senses whether God does not exist. That is not a subject for my knowledge or my reason. So I recognize the limits of my intellectual capacity. I trust science no more than religion in that regard. Science, like religion, aims to construct "truth." The difference lies in the means by which they arrive at truth. For science, sense and observation provide the answers. For religion, faith and belief attempt to answer the question. For both, there are questions that cannot be answered.

I have great respect for Christ's core principles. I sincerely wish that all men would love their neighbors as they love themselves. I sincerely wish that men would practice charity and compassion toward one another. I wish that men would consider others rather than themselves in their ruthless quest for gain. These are beautiful sentiments. But this world does not observe them. Even so-called Christians do not observe them because churches warp Christ's original principles with human-created doctrine. If Christians truly followed Christ, there would have been no crusades, nor would there have been slavery or war. There would be no persecution or racism, because all men are equal in God's eyes, and God loves all equally. Yet crusades, war, slavery, racism, imperialism, intolerance, genocide and persecution have routinely occurred since Western civilization "embraced Christ." In fact, many of these atrocities happened in the name of Christ! I blame the church for imposing human weakness on pure Christian ideals. Churches are human institutions, and the average human cannot hold to pure principles. Churches mix Christian ideals with human "flexibility." And that mixture has led to the religiously-flavored barbarism we have witnessed over the past 2000 years.

Who really follows Christ today? Ironically, many Americans consider themselves devout Christians, yet patently contradict Christ's core teachings. They profess Christian love, yet embrace inequality. They profess respect for all life, yet willingly put criminals to death. I think they simply like hearing about Christian love, without ever really intending to practice it. It just gives them a nice, fuzzy feeling before they go back into the marketplace to ruthlessly advance their own interests over all others. Americans do not love their enemies or turn the other cheek; they crush their competitors, make a profit and relish the fact that they are better than their neighbors. Put another way, Christian ideals are all well and good, but "you can't do that stuff in the real world." That is not faith. That is surrender.

Americans zealously uphold practical inequality. The quest to outdo their neighbors motivates their behavior, and that means winning at all costs. They want to win at school, win at work, win in marriage, and even win in sports. By winning, they distinguish themselves from their neighbors. But if God loves every man equally, what does that distinction really mean? Why invest so much energy into the quest for inequality if it means nothing in the end? Obviously Christian principles have no place in this "life competition." They are fundamentally inconsistent with each other.

Would an American today be willing to sacrifice himself to save a stranger's life? Perhaps that is asking too much. Let us rather hypothesize: Would an American today be willing to sacrifice his standard of living, money, property and job for the guarantee that 5 strangers would escape poverty forever? In other words, could an American be a FINANCIAL CHRIST? Would an American have the selfless dedication to give up his life savings and property for the certain knowledge that he rescued 5 strangers from ruin? What if we assured the Financial Christ that he could recover his property after sacrificing it? Would that make the sacrifice more attractive? Or would a true Financial Christ sacrifice his property without any hope of future benefit or security? After all, Jesus Christ died willingly to save a world of strangers without any hope or expectation of earthly reward. Would anyone today be willing to make an even smaller sacrifice, even with assurances?

If we answer "no," what does it say about our values? What does it say about our priorities in life? Perhaps there are those in our society who may be willing to sacrifice their money and property to save 5 strangers from poverty, but only if they were contractually assured they would get their money back AND that there was no fraud afoot. Perhaps that response would better indicate our values: A suspicious, guilty, halting desire to help others, so long as we can be assured that we will not suffer in the long-term. Is that truly Christian? Is that even a sacrifice?