It must have been one of the hardest stories NBC ever had to cover.  Yet they were given no choice.  Brian Williams, a guy many of us have long admired, was found guilty of a serious breach of trust.  Not in a court of law, but through a thorough investigation.  

Nobody tried to hide the fact that there was an investigation either.  We knew that was going on some time before the findings were concluded and he was given six months leave of absence without pay. Did anyone question making the investigation public?  Absolutely not!

Every time he steps back into the public limelight as a journalist, if he chooses to do so, we're all going to remember that he embellished a story for his own good.  Trusting him will be up to each of us as an individual. 

Because of what Brian did, we may all be a little more hesitant to trust journalists in general.  Yet what if NBC had tried to protect him?  What would the consequences have been for the profession if/when it was found out?  There is no indication that NBC cowered behind the potential threat of a lawsuit if Williams had decided to challenge their findings in a court of law?   

So tell me--please tell me if you can--why "Christian ethics" marches to a different standard.  In other words:  Why does religion, either in its the organized or disorganized state, "reason" things so differently when faced with a breach of trust that's far more serious than Brian William's?  Why do they still refuse to give full disclosure when one of their own, especially a member of the clergy, is being invesigated for sexual abuse?  Why is the public not fully informed if a person is found guilty, though (for whatever reason) the case doesn't end up in court?

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 4:49 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

There are a lot of scary characters hoping to run against President Obama.  Scary characters without character.  They say one thing, but their lives and records show something entirely different.  These characters are lacking in integrity.

What scares me most is that we don't have enough intelligent people to sort out the emptiness of the half-truths.

For instance, this morning I heard Newt saying that this President has a record number of people on food stamps.  Like he's going out on the street corners, handing out vouchers!!   That's the implication.

Of course, we have a record number of people on food stamps.  Why?  Because the powers that be fail to see how much an economy that worships consumer capitalism creates the problems that contribute to people needing to apply.

Cicero said:  "So near is falsehood to truth that a wise man would do well not to trust himself on the narrow edge."

I don't think Newt ever studied Cicero.

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 4:53 PM CST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The favorite verse used for proof-texting by people who don't want to consider accountability is "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Most of you know how I feel about proof-texting.  I refuse to stoop to the level of arrogancy that implies that the intended audience is wayward in forgetting some important scripture.  Proof-texting is used in the hope of changing people's minds.  It almost never works, except in cases where the minds of the hearers are so easily swayed that it's scary.

"Judge not that ye be not judged" is thrown my direction quite often.  I've heard it most often when I've asked someone to join my attempts to hold someone accountable for what people like to call "just a mistake."  Problem is that "just a mistake," in these instances, refers to illegal behavior or morally reprehensible behavior.  

Examples include drug abuse and distribution, behaviors that result from drug or alcohol abuse, and any form of violence and/or abuse.  The favorite place to use the "Judge not" platitude is in protecting a minister or church leader! 

Notice that I insist on sticking to behavior.   Not labelling a person as inherently "bad."  THAT would be judging.

Somehow, religious folks often stretch the theological concepts of grace and mercy to such an extreme that ALL determination of culpability on this earth would be thrown out.  The implication is:  "Let's just wait until God's Judgment Day." (ie. in the "sweet by and by")

The "Judge not" scolding is intended to stop all conversation.  To be honest, it often works with me.  I just give up because that's often the only wise thing to do.

Recently, however, I got creative.  In one very brief statement, I stopped all conversation myself:

"I'm not judging anyone.  Because you are refusing to hold this person accountable, I'm simply questioning your judgment."

To this, I could have added:  "Now, please stop judging me!"

Posted by Dee Ann Miller at 12:01 AM CDT

Updated: Tue 09/22/2009 8:05 AM CDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink