Cat logomenu

Blog

page 7

Don’t Conflate Policies and Values

Content Warnings: poverty, worker abuse, human trafficking

The idea of raising the minimum wage from its current value of $7.25 per hour to between $10 and \$15 per hour has received a lot of coverage in the political and economic news lately. Some argue that such a raise is long overdue, as the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation, and that those currently making at or around the minimum wage are being needlessly kept in poverty. Others believe that raising the minimum wage will shortly produce higher prices that lower the buying power of both the poor and the middle class. Some even oppose the very concept of a minimum wage, while people at the other end of the spectrum think we should institute a Basic Guaranteed Income. Proponents of every viewpoint make what they feel to be very reasonable and compelling arguments, and many outspoken pundits attribute to their opponents either ignorance, ill will, or both.

Let’s say (because it’s true) that I believe a dramatic increase in the federal minimum wage will actually result in workers being worse off in the mid- to long-term future. Even though I agree that it doesn’t make much sense to let inflation grossly outpace the minimum wage, I’m also not too sure a federal minimum wage is such a great idea in the first place. I worry that if we increase the minimum wage, workers like me who make only a little more than \$15/hour will demand a similar increase in wages from our employers, which will ratchet up the whole system, once again pushing the lowest-paid workers far to the bottom of the heap in quality of life, while leaving unaddressed the other systemic problems in our economy that perpetuate the income disparity.

A strong proponent of increasing the minimum wage would disagree with my position and all, or nearly all, of my reasoning. We could agree, though, on the value that I hope I’ve done a good job of positioning as the basis for my opinion: the desire for an increase in buying power and quality of life for lower-income workers.

Unfortunately, very few people (at least the kinds speaking loudly on the internet and cable news) appear capable of making such a distinction. Most of us have so tangled our values with the policies by which we think those values could best be achieved that we assume anyone who doesn’t agree with our policies must not adhere to our values. Why doesn’t Ryan think we should raise the minimum wage? He must hate poor people; that’s why he wants them to continue suffering such injustice. At best, we can assume that Ryan has little concern for poor people. Maybe he doesn’t wish them harm, but he doesn’t wish them well, either.

Of course, phrased so baldly such reasoning sounds a little silly. I don’t hate poor people, and I certainly do wish them well. I suspect that most people would like to see poverty mitigated or erased, so the second I realize that my repudiation of someone’s stated opinion on the subject boils down to “this jerk hates poor people”, I know I need to take a step back and consider whether I’m confusing a disagreement about policy with a mismatch of values.

To take another issue as an example: Even though for religious reasons I believe that prostitution is immoral, I think legalized prostitution is probably the best way to decrease trafficking and abuse of sex workers and help keep women and men safe when they sell or purchase sexual services. At the very least, I believe we need to decriminalize sex workers so they feel safe seeking help from authorities when they suffer abuse. Plenty of people disagree on both counts. Do those people hate sex workers and want them to suffer? Maybe a few do, but I’ll bet that most just don’t think my policies would result in a net gain for society as a whole or sex workers in particular. Some would probably even argue that my policies would cause greater harm to sex workers in the long run. Still other people would tell me that even my religious objection to the act of prostitution itself taints my opinion with toxic sentiment, making me, on the whole, a harmful force in the battle for sex workers’ rights. Do such people hate religion or religious people? Again: maybe. Or maybe they just care more about the welfare and rights of sex workers than about coddling the opinions of well-meaning but moralistic Christians. It would be a massive mistake on my part to assume raw anti-religious sentiment on their part, just as they would be unfair to depict me as nothing but a hypocritical and judgmental religious bigot. Someone’s policies or opinions can be wrong or harmful even if that person means well and espouses worthy values.

I believe that most people do have worthy values, even if they don’t always express or embody them well or even understand their own opinions in such terms. I’ll go one step further and assert that most people hold values that match or at the very least align well with everyone else’s. Most of us want the same sorts of things: for as many people as possible—especially those closest to us—to have food, clothing, shelter, education, freedom from oppression, and the opportunity to do work that gives meaning to their lives. Some people add values of spirituality or religious devotion and attribute some or all of our values to a divine source, but we do not therefore jettison the aforementioned values shared by the rest of the world. The more consistently I recognize this fact about the people with whom I disagree, the less cynical and hostile I make myself, and the more optimism and comradeship I can feel toward my fellow humans.

July 30, 2015

haniemohd:

To that brilliant, snarkiest and sharpest of mind - Goodbye Sir Terry Prachett. Words cannot convey how much joy his writings has brought me all these years.

March 13, 2015

We can combat painful pleasure only with pure pleasure. — Naomi Wolf, The Beauty Myth

December 25, 2014

Numbering My Days

Sometimes, at the end of the weekend, when the advent of Monday morning begins to steal the last few hours of Sunday evening, I feel the weight of my accumulated days dragging at me. I lie down to sleep fighting the urge to count the remaining weeks in the calendar year, as if the fear of another December come and gone will lend some urgency to my choices.

I can stave off this dread by making some sort of vaguely-defined meaningful “progress” on one of the creative projects by which I have come to measure my own self-worth. Even writing this post indicates a final desperate attempt to end the weekend on a higher note—to brand the fading memory of Sunday with a sense of accomplishment rather than futility.

“Teach me to number my days.” The more I internalize this, the better I get at choosing to spend my time in ways that will make me feel hopeful, empowered, and alive.

November 9, 2014

’Cause you can make your life look good\ You can do what Jesus would\ But you’d be surprised what you can do with a hard heart\ — Derek Webb, “Ballad in Plain Red”

October 30, 2014

Army of Dolls stole your reflection\ Army of Dolls stole all your perfect imperfections. — Delain, “Army of Dolls”

October 24, 2014

Catwoman looking at a conical object held in her hand

Catwoman taking a selfie, with "Selfie" written above her outstretched arm

Catwoman tweaking her hood and smiling, with the word "Cat" written above her head

hannakdraws:

teenage catwoman doodles. her hoodie is actually cerise but the camera turned it pastel

I accept.

September 8, 2014

rfkelly:

This person’s posters are pretty amazing.

August 24, 2014

If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy. You cannot speak any of the necessary dialects, and when you make a stupid remark its stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. — George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

July 24, 2014

Paradigm Shift

This morning at my church something said during the post-sermon discussion1 recontextualized in my mind the debate on homosexuality currently happening in the Western Church. I found myself mentally framing the problem in this way: Proponents of gay rights and those who assert that Christians should fully accept gay people tend to think of the issue as one of justice; opponents of same-sex marriage and those who believe actively gay people2 can’t fully participate in Christianity tend to think of it as a morality issue.

Clearly I’m engaging in fairly abstract thinking here, so let me just say up front that anyone debating this issue needs to remember one thing perhaps more than any other: to actual gay people and those who love or care about them, it is primarily neither a justice nor a moral issue but a personal issue. When arguing about whether we can accept gay people in the church, we are actually, from their perspective, arguing about whether God made them to be the way they believe they inherently are. This seems a little arrogant by its very nature. So, even if your personal answer to that question is “no”, always keep in mind that they will see your denial as a denial of their fundamental humanity. Conversely, if your answer is “yes”, don’t think that gives you the right to speak authoritatively on their behalf. No one wants to feel like a political football.

To return to my initial thought, though, this difference in perspective explains why this particular debate has grown so bitter and divisive, with people on either side continually giving in to the temptation to portray their opponents as monsters. LGBTQ advocates see conservative Christians as something akin to people who still believe in racial segregation, or worse: slavery. Traditionalists consider gay Christians and their allies essentially willful heretics: people who deliberately ignore what the Bible says so they can keep sinning, or accept people who are sinning, respectively. Both groups, of course, comprise mostly good-hearted people trying their best to do what they think is right.3 But it is in the nature of people to engage in black-and-white, good-versus-evil thinking and consider anyone not in complete agreement with oneself to be the enemy. Moreover, with such strong motivating factors as the desire for justice and the desire for moral purity, one’s opponents will appear to actually hate justice itself or morality itself, not to simply disagree about the nature of justice or morality, and neither side will likely change its mind easily or within a short span of time. Thus the Church appears doomed, in the near-to-medium future, to war within itself, causing severe and lasting casualties in the form of damaged relationships, decreased church attendance or involvement, and—since the world is supposed to know we follow Jesus because of our love for each other—uncounted potential converts repulsed by our in-fighting.

Since the Kingdom of God in our present age must transcend such enmity and make peace between people who would not otherwise have peace, we cannot accept this state of affairs. Thus, I propose a re-framing of the issue of how the Church will accept and respond to LGBTQ people: instead of thinking of the issue as either a justice issue or a moral issue, let us consider it for the time being a potential paradigm shift. Fortunately, we already have a very explicit model for dealing with paradigm shifts: say nothing.

This is, in essence, what I interpret to be Paul’s advice in 1 Corinthians 8, 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14: when confronted with someone who has decided they can’t accept a practice you accept, don’t throw your acceptance their face. On the other hand, when confronted with someone who accepts something you don’t feel you can accept, leave that between them and their conscience, which is to say, between them and God.

Yes, this means that conservative Christians may need to allow their churches to be thronged with gay people who suddenly feel much more accepted by Christendom than they did before. It also means that LGBTQ allies may need to spend less time talking loudly in public about how the truly Christlike thing is to fully accept people of any sexual orientation. Maybe, we just… let it go, for now. If this whole culture shift blows over in a decade or so, and we all swing back around to believing homosexuality is unnatural and not to be accepted by society, traditionalists won’t have to feel guilty for how abusively they behaved toward LGBTQ advocates. And if, as I expect, twenty years from now we take for granted that a man can love Jesus and still totally have sex with another man, those who have been saying this all along will have already spent lots of time learning to be gracious toward those who couldn’t see quite so far ahead.

In the mean time, imagine the following scenario: a gay couple arrives for the first time at a conservative church. Liz introduces herself to the man next to her by saying, “Hi, I’m Liz, and this is my wife, Kari”, and the man responds, “It’s nice to meet you; how did you find your way to our church?” At the end of the service, the woman sitting behind Kari asks the couple out to lunch, and makes sure they know by the end of the meal that she fully accepts their marriage and their place in the church. Liz and Kari come back a second and third time to the church, and even though they eventually realize that most of the people there don’t agree with their host from the first Sunday, they never feel de-humanized or condemned. They become members and raise their adorable adopted children there. They give money to the church. Liz works in the nursery; Kari organizes the yearly food drive at Thanksgiving. Occasionally they engage the pastor of the church in a spirited debate on the issue of homosexuality, and at the end he says, “Well, I don’t agree, but I’m really grateful for your perspective”, and he means it.

Does that sound so bad?



  1. One of the perks of being a small church. Don’t try to pretend you’re not jealous.
  2. By this I mean: people who identify as gay and are not celibate but pursue romantic and sexual relationships with other people to whom they are sexually attracted.
  3. Mostly.

June 1, 2014