Do the Benefits of Capitalism Transcend Traditional Religion?

Islam, Judaism, and Christianity currently constitute the three major religions of the world. They are distinguishable from one another through some major theological differences. However, one concept they all have in common is that they make certain things or people the object of ritualistic avoidances.

Objects of ritualistic avoidance can more succinctly be described as people, things, or ideas that do not fit into an expected or “proper” category. For example, when an animal bleeds without stopping for several days, it is expected to die. However, women bleed every month, for several days, and nevertheless live. Because of this fact, women, in many religions and cultures, have become the object of a ritualistic avoidance. According to ancient texts of all three major religions, women are supposed to cover their heads and men are supposed to avoid them, except in marriage. Women are prohibited from co-mingling with men in mosques and orthodox synagogues. In the past, men and women were separated into churches. Furthermore, many women, even today, are kept primarily in the home, away from people they do not know.

Homosexuals are often another object of ritualistic avoidance because they do not fit the expected category of a male husband and a female wife. Furthermore, they have sexual relations but do not have children. As a result, they too, like women, are often made the object of a ritualistic avoidance. For example, homosexuals are prohibited entry into many places of worship, and most religions will not provide a ritualistic coming together for them, such as a marriage ceremony. Like women, in many societies, homosexuals are often avoided.

Transgendered individuals provide a classic case of individuals who do not fit into a category. Neither exclusively male or female, they defy convention. Many religions or denominations have condemned them to hell, denied them entry into places of worship, and prohibited them from even being around church members. They are fired from jobs, kicked out of families, and often left on the streets. Arguably, it is difficult to contemplate a more uncertain social position, where the traditional categories simply do not apply.

African-Americans occupy a precarious position within the history of America. Their peculiar beginning in this country has resulted in them becoming the object of ritualistic avoidances, throughout time. The hardships they suffered provided historical examples of how capitalism can transcend systemic racism. For example, the Woolworth’s lunch counter sit-ins of 1960 resulted in an extraordinary loss of revenue to the company. As a result, Woolworths changed its discriminatory policy of not serving African-Americans. Additionally, the Birmingham bus boycott of 1956/57, triggered by the Rosa Parks incident, ended because of the economic loss to the bus lines. The tremendous loss of revenue resulted in the discriminatory law being swiftly changed. These examples of capitalism transcending ritualistic avoidance arguably resulted in a better world for us all.

In the business world, business owners and employees alike, encounter various types of individuals. Quite simply, if a person has the need for a product or service, it is highly unlikely they will be ritualistically avoided. This is because of the economic benefit reaped by the company or individual providing the product or service. In this sense, as displayed in the historical examples previously cited, it can be asserted that capitalism has the potential to be the great equalizer. For example, if a woman, homosexual, transgendered individual, or African-American, expressed an interest in purchasing a digital marketing program, a plethora of individuals within this given field would immediately run to their aid. Denying service to them would result in a negative societal benefit or loss of revenue. Those refusing to provide service would be doing so at their own peril. As a result, capitalism makes approaching, co-mingling, and serving them preferable.

The three major religions of the world encourage the ritualistic avoidance of individuals who do not fit into “proper” societal categories. However, capitalism has quite the opposite effect, providing an economic benefit for supplying products or services for individuals, whether they fit into a category or not. As a result, one can surmise that capitalism has the potential to be the great equalizer, transcending some of the negative aspects of religion as well as their resulting cultural rituals. As capitalism spreads around the world, its equalizing qualities and positive social benefits will avail themselves to further analysis and study.

Why Believing in One Concept is not Necessarily Contrary to Another

“Speaking as a Catholic here…please don’t donate money to help Notre Dame. The church is worth $300 billion. Donate to help Puerto Rico recover. Donate to get the people of Flint clean water. Donate to get kids out of cages. Jesus didn’t care about stained glass. He cared about humans.” (1)

As a citizen of the world, I am absolutely appalled by this misguided statement made by author Kristan Higgins. Why am I appalled? I am appalled because Notre Dame is a symbol of not only the Catholic Church, but of a millennium of culture. It is essentially a living, breathing historical monument that gives its own unique perspective on the French Revolution. It holds countless forms of priceless art, not to mention a plethora of religious relics including the purported crown of thorns that sat on the head of Jesus Christ during his crucifixion. This monument to French history is appreciated by millions of individuals around the world, of different faiths and different values. It is a timeless gem, and the loss of Notre Dame, or the lack of its restoration, is arguably truly devastating for all of humanity.

This leads to the next question. Why would someone make such a careless statement? In essence, Ms. Higgins has fallen prey to the misunderstanding brought upon us by false dichotomies. False dichotomies advocate, what some call, “the either-or fallacy,” also referred to as “black-and-white thinking.” (2) For example, individuals offended by the “Black Lives Matter Movement,” argue that “All lives matter.” However, simply because a movement advocates that the lives of African Americans in the United States matter, does not mean, or in any way advocate, that the lives of white, Asian, or other ethnic groups do not matter. Advocating for one group does not mean advocating against others. Similarly, simply because a person is pro-choice, does not mean they are against, or in any way opposed, to women choosing to continue with their pregnancies. On the whole, the pro-choice movement advocates the introduction of choices to young women, and the provision of assistance to them, regardless of what personal choice they make.

The false dichotomy advocated by Ms. Higgins argues that if you give money to a cause such as Notre Dame, you inherently do not care about people suffering around the world. This is not the case. One can care about restoring Notre Dame, and allocate money toward this cause, while still caring about “kids in cages” or people having clean water in Michigan. One must not care about one cause, to the exclusion of the other. Perhaps Ms. Higgins made her statement simply to be inflammatory and to start a dialogue on this matter. However, it is also very possible that Ms. Higgins believes what she stated, and in the process of taking her stance, ultimately misdirected funds that could have gone to help restore this timeless symbol of our humanity. Either way, it is important for individuals to understand the fallacy of false dichotomies, and not to fall prey to individuals making “either-or” arguments.

I am honored to have had the privilege of seeing Notre Dame twice before it burned. I am also thankful that my nine-year-old niece, who is well on her way to being a citizen of the world, also experienced the privilege of seeing and learning about this glorious cathedral. Contributing to its restoration, in any way one can, is a worthwhile endeavor, and it is not to the exclusion of other worthwhile causes around the world. In essence, one can care about the poor, and the restoration of Notre Dame, at the very same time, without degrading the value of the other. I implore you to give, to whatever cause moves you, without hesitation. Quite simply, in doing so, one can never go wrong, and, in the end, all of humanity ultimately benefits.

1. https://amarketnews.com/2019/04/17/please-dont-donate-to-help-notre-dame-said-author-kristan-higgins/
2. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Why Maintaining the Trust of Subjects or Clients is Paramount to Business Success

Honesty and accountability are two characteristics required for a business to succeed. Boeing and the Kingdom of Morocco have recently devolved into chaotic situations, betraying the trust of their clients or subjects.

Once a beloved figure of Morocco, King Mohammed VI is now the focus of his subjects’ anger and bewilderment. His wife, the first and so far only Princess Consort, Princess Lalla Salma, has disappeared from public life, simply abandoning her charities and constituents. The Moroccan people are wanting answers, but the King and his court are suspiciously quiet. This is driving a wedge between the King and his country’s trust. Will their disrespect influence the countries with which Morocco does business?

The Boeing Corporation is an American favorite airplane manufacturer. The American government, its people, and other countries around the world, have trusted Boeing completely and rooted for its success. So powerful is this trust, that the Federal Aviation Administration has allowed Boeing to certify its own airplanes, absent the FAA’s final seal of approval. This once beloved company arguably betrayed this trust when they continued to fly the Boeing 737 Max, after two fatal crashes killing every person on board, and one more close call. Their silence and complicity regarding the reasons for the crashes as well as their possible role in it’s occurring, has frightened individuals around the world. Has Boeing’s drive for profit ultimately put its clients at risk? If so, are they willing to stand up and take responsibility?

These situations are similar in the sense that both King Mohammed VI and Boeing are essentially self-regulating entities, entrusted to keep the best interests of their constituents at heart. Their reputations are critical to the success of these “entities,” and a loss of trust will then lead to a lack of sales and/or trade agreements on both accounts.

In essence, a great deal of trust has been put into King Mohammed VI and Boeing. But just as easily as trust is given, it can be taken away. Princess Lalla Salma, once a feminist icon in the stifling Middle East, has simply disappeared from the national stage. The world press has resorted to frantically searching for the missing princess, as the royal court has refused to comment on her whereabouts, or whether she is even dead or alive. On the same token, Boeing made such substantial changes to the 737, that its newest incarnation, the 737 Max, barely resembles its parent, in either form or function. Despite this unsettling fact, Boeing has made no changes to the 737 Max training manual or checklist. Additionally, Boeing has offered its pilots no additional training or preparedness for the plane’s substantial changes. As a result, two horrific crashes have ensued, and the plane has subsequently been grounded by the FAA.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and there are no better examples than King Mohammed VI of Morocco and Boeing. Honesty and accountability are required for any entity to have the trust of its people. A lack of accountability has led to the possible murder of a princess consort, and the untimely deaths of many airline passengers. Businesses and governments must remain accountable and honest, or risk losing their reputation and trust in the ensuing chaos. Once trust is gone, it is very difficult to regain.

Can Revolution be Reconciled with Love For Queen and Country?

I have often been accused of seeing the world through royal-colored glasses. As a history major in college, I, more often than not, gravitated toward the study of British history and it’s colonialism around the world. As the head of my church, the UK, and the Commonwealth around the world, Queen Elizabeth II has always commanded my deepest respect. Needless to say, the people of the Republic of Ireland feel quite differently.

The Republic of Ireland is a place where royals do not belong. It is a country built on the blood and sacrifice of Irish men and women who wanted to offer future generations their very best chance. No tiaras are for sale, nor t-shirts that say, “Irish Princess.” This is a populist country, born out of revolution, and it’s people hold a great disdain for the English.

As an Episcopalian, raised on fairytales and Princess Diana, I found the tragedies of the Irish Republic hard to reconcile with my internalized beliefs. Raised by Anglophiles, and indoctrinated with love of Queen and country, I found myself smacked in the face with a very opposing point of view. Our host explained to us that the British taxed the amount of sunlight used by the Irish. Additionally, we learned how the British cut down the majority of Ireland’s trees, shipping them abroad. Adding insult to injury, the British forbade the Irish from building their own homes out of wood. When the potato famine occurred, the British systematically starved the Irish by refusing to distribute food sent in aid. Heavily taxed, starving, and with their natural resources pummeled, the Irish radically grew in their contempt toward the British.

To put it simply, when the synthesis, (the British Empire) collided with the antithesis, (the Irish people) revolution occurred in the form of the Easter rebellion. I learned of this rebellion during what is called the GPO (General Post Office) tour. With the British preoccupied during WWI, and the idea of Irish “Home Rule,” tabled at the time, a small group of rebels took over the city of Dublin. The General Post office served as their headquarters, and success appeared within their grasp, until the British came in with reinforcements, ending the rebellion. A brutal execution by firing squad awaited the ringleaders of this event, turning moderate Irish nearly overnight into radicalized ones.

The plight of the rebels is emotional and heartbreaking. As an individual, I felt great understanding and pain for them. As a woman, I felt great pride in the females who took part, but as an Anglophile, I understood the need of the British to put down the rebellion. The sacrifices made by the rebels put the idea of “Home Rule” to rest, and made the idea of a republic the only acceptable solution. In the end, the rebels won, and the majority of Ireland today is a republic, free from the far reaching tentacles of the British Empire.

As I learned of the terrible treatment of the British toward the Irish, I could not help but feel like a colonial interloper, traipsing through the halls of revolution. My host even commented that I seemed very colonial, and that perhaps such tendencies literally existed in my family’s blood. As I listened and learned about the Easter Rebellion, I also could not help but compare their treatment to that of franchises by their corporate offices. Many times, the high fees, extreme regulation, and lack of local control, can lead to a revolution of sorts. Many businesses, to whom I provide marketing services, began as franchises that ultimately claimed their independence. I have actually assisted various former franchises, in creating their own unique corporate identity. But is this not the will of man-to be free and in control of one’s own destiny?

As an American of British descent, and as a member of the Anglican communion around the world, I hold great love for Great Britain and it’s royal family. This will not change. However, as a woman and as an individual, I understand and respect the decisions made by the revolutionaries who spearheaded the Easter Rebellion. I feel I can understand and respect what occurred without betraying or sacrificing my own sense of self. I love Ireland; I love it’s people, and I also love Great Britain. However, the plight of the Irish is still very real and ongoing in its northern dominion, and only time will tell it’s final result. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to proclaim, ‘God save the Queen!”

This e-column is devoted to the reactions I received to an article I wrote entitled, “The Space Shuttle, Ted Bundy, and Unplanned Pregnancies.” If you have not read this article, it is available at: https://www.katherinefry.net/the-space-shuttle-ted-bundy-and-unplanned-pregnancies/

As the author of an e-column, I am privy to emotions on all side of the political spectrum. As a woman, I advocate reproductive freedom and equal rights between the genders. As a business person, I am an advocate of capitalism and restricting the reach of government into our businesses. As a Christian, I believe in living my life in a Christ-like manner and loving my neighbor as myself. I also strongly feel that all voices have a right to be heard, even if I don’t necessarily agree with them. Following are some of the varied reactions I received to the aforementioned article.

Reaction #1

Katherine:

By your standards, I had no right to live and society would have statistically been better off if I had never been born because teenage pregnancies are inconvenient and because I might have grown up to be a bad person. Disgusting. My kids rock! Despite the fact that your stats say they should not be here. They are not related to Ted Bundy that I know of unless we are all related and therefore should all deserve to die based on your beliefs.

To equate teenage pregnancy to Ted Bundy’s life is idiotic and offensive. From someone who has never given birth, it is an idiotic position and very offensive to those who have (my wife had two miscarriages before we had our second child). By your standards, I do not have the right to have ever been born. While I’m not perfect, I did not grow up to be a serial killer or menace to society (as your f***** up stats suggest). But I may have been an inconvenience to my family. However I do now provide employment to over 500 employees and they are all are thankful for my contribution to society, as I’m a d*** good person to work for in today’s economy.

Because of my ability to provide for my family, my wife volunteers every week to cuddle, rock, care, and love for newborn babies in the ********* NICU. EVERY ONE of those babies deserve the chance to live and do great things despite their unfortunate circumstances. F*** statistics on their outcomes. It just takes saving one life to justify not murdering thousands.

My wife does that every day. She takes care of beautiful newborn babies regardless of their circumstances. And I support her 100%. (But I guess I don’t count since I should not have been born by current liberal standards).

This is not a debate or discussion. Do not communicate back. My values and views will not be changed. Therefore, do not attempt to do so. So do not attempt any further argument or discussion.

DO NOT RESPOND

Reaction #2

Katherine:

My mother and father were very young parents, going through very rough emotional dramas. When they were pregnant with a third child, they opted for a “home” abortion, which ultimately killed my mother. I feel that if legal abortions had been made available, my brother and I might have been raised by both parents even with their lack of making good choices. Who is to know if things would have turned out better or worse for any of our family. We were raised by my grandmother who was a very strong, independent woman. As I look back, I am also better for being raised by her, though those circumstances created other issues in my life. I firmly believe in a woman’s right to make those decisions and not the government. I am pro-life, while leaving these very personal decisions between a woman and God. Good article Kat.

Reaction #3

Katherine:
Amazing the way you tied those three things together. I tend to agree with you. I believe abortion is an individual’s moral choice-not a legislative one. I knew a woman who used abortion as birth control and had three in one year. To me, that feels wrong. My best friend in ********** had an abortion after birthing two children, and the couple felt they could not financially nor energetically support a third child-he more than she. A year later they split. She felt profound loss, and thirty years later counts how old the child would be.
With much bleeding and placenta previa with my third, it was suggested that I abort, since I lived so far from the hospital and, if I hemorrhaged, I could die in ten minutes. I moved closer to town and had no problems. So it seems to me that everyone’s story is different. My path is not your path. We cannot judge and we certainly cannot legislate.
One woman on Facebook loves Trump, only because of abortion. She is nasty about immigrants, fine about cutting food stamps and putting babies in cages. How is this pro-life? Pence wants to end birth control.
Cancer is a conglomeration of living cells. When smallpox was eradicated, scientists wondered if a small amount of the virus should be kept alive because it was a living thing. Physics shows us, if everything is made of the same molecules than everything is everything, and if everything is light on different density scales, then it is all just energy…so there is no right or wrong.

From Katherine Fry:

I want to thank everyone who took the time to send me a response. In closing, I would like to quote the late Dr. Martin Luther King. “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” (1) I now open the floor for further discussion.

1. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/martin_luther_king_jr_101472