And now, for a word about door-to-door solicitations.
DISCLAIMER: In taking up this topic, it is not my wish to alienate anybody who simply does not give to any unsolicited requests for donations as a matter of principle. I quite understand this sentiment, as I make it a rule never to commit money over the phone unless I'm the originator of the request.
What I'm after is finding a method of dealing with them that not only does justice to both parties involved, but that harmonizes with Christian, and especially Catholic, principles. I will also not be talking about those solicitations you get over the phone, partly because I have a rule for not giving to them, and partly because elements of the strategy below will also work with phone solicitors.
But doorknockers are a special category, since they are people, and people by definition have souls--souls which you should be interested in saving. Now I'm not talking about handing out tracts, stumping for the Church, and asking them whether they want to go to Mass with you. That would be termed, popularly, as the evangelical approach. What we're talking about here is something subtle, human, practical, and very Catholic, that anyone can do without feeling embarrassed or apologetic about it.
Therefore, doorknockers are a special problem--and a special opportunity. They are also in-your-face unavoidable, and you can't exactly slam down the phone after making pretend static noises and get away with it. You have a commission from God to spread the Gospel, in whatever form you can, even if it means just not being a jerk. Here are some methods I've used that do not pass the test:
1) PRETEND TO NOT BE HOME. This does not work. Either I end up skulking in the bathroom, feeling like an idiot, or the two cars in the driveway and the shrieking toddler give me away. One time the "solicitors," two little neighborhood boys, peeked in our front window, and I was indignant enough to give them a dressing-down for it. Then I felt like a mean idiot.
2) PUT UP A SIGN. This does not work because in order to make the sign effective, it either has to be SO LARGE that all your neighbors can see it from across the street, and thus becomes a real eyesore--as well as making you look reclusive and inhospitable--or it is so small as to be easily ignored by the doorknocker. I once created a sign that I could put up in the window as needed, in lieu of opening the door, but this approach creeped me out, as well as the doorknockers (from what I gathered of the looks on their faces). The effect was, "Help, I'm a prisoner in my own home! Call the 6 o'clock news!"
3) GET RID OF THEM. This involves opening the door, listening to them just long enough to get a word in edgewise, and then declaring your disinterest and slamming the door in their faces. This approach is so repugnant that it not only drives people to use methods 1) and 2) above, but it doesn't always work because you are not always close to a door. For example, today's encounter happened while I was out front mowing the lawn.
4) THE PAYOFF. Let them get their spiel out, squirm a little bit and dig around for a buck or two just to get them off your property.
OK, so how do we deal with these people in a humane and Christian manner?
First, let me say unapologetically that we are on every do-not-call list in existence, and our name is on file with the DMA to not send us all those catalogs. There is nothing wrong with that, in my estimation. Being a Christian does not mean that you must invite an inundation of wasteful, irksome, and sometimes obnoxious marketing attempts. There is nothing wrong with telling people that this is not a good time, their cause is not on your priority list, or that you simply can't afford to add to your charitable donations this month. But you could always consider them for next month. This leads me to strategy #1:
1) SEE THEIR SOUL: The fundamental idea is trying to spread the Gospel to every human being you find in front of you, no matter where you are. So remind yourself that this is a person beloved of God, that he or she has an immortal soul, and "you are the only Bible they may ever read." So quickly pray and ask yourself, "How can I be Jesus to this person?" Not, "What would Jesus do?" but "How can I show the love of Christ and the truth of the Gospel to them, even in just a few minutes?" This necessarily shapes what comes next:
2) LISTEN. Hear them out. Give them a chance to practice their spiel, and try to consider their request. Chances are they're footsore, have been all over the neighborhood, and the rough treatment from some of your neighbors is probably getting them down. You don't have to invite them inside for tea and cookies, but at least give them two minutes of your time. That tells THEM that you truly care about them as a person, even if you aren't buying.
3) ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION. This is the true Gospel test. If you definitely aren't interested, and there's no way you'd ever use that service, tell them politely, smile, and say you're sorry but you hope they have better luck. Practice your manners. BUT if there's any possibility you might use that service, or give to their cause, go ahead and ask some questions. This serves a dual purpose. If you ultimately do not decide to accede to their request, at least you've given them a fair hearing. You may find out about information that interests you but seems unrelated. If you ARE interested in giving or subscribing (or whatever), you need to ask a few more questions simply to verify that you are dealing with a reputable organization, not just a shyster cruising the neighborhood. If they are serious and their organization is legit, they'll be happy to take some time and answer all your questions. Only a crook would suddenly be in a hurry.
4) BE HONEST. I was talking with a DISH satellite sales guy and had come to the point where he was using my phone to inquire about the tax rates attached to the service, and I was reading through the fine print on the contract. The reason I was considering the service was their low promotional rate and the fact that they offered a family package with EWTN, a Catholic cable channel. But the contract was very long, with rigid terms and steep fines if you didn't do everything on the nose. I handed it back to him and said, "I'm sorry. I really would like to do it, I just don't think I can live up to my part of the contract. Sorry to have wasted your time." He was very persistent, but all was polite.
5) BE GENTLE. I don't know quite how to quantify this, but I guess it means that since I started dealing with solicitors in this manner, I've never felt the need to be rude, brusque, or brassy. I always make lots of eye contact, shake hands, and call the person by name. A final note: if there's an opportunity to simply mention my faith in the course of the conversation, I do so. We might be discussing the weather or current events and you could say, "God's in control." Or you could say "Praise God!" if the person relates some good news that seems particularly heaven-sent. "I'll say a prayer for that," can be appropriate if a personal matter enters the conversation. A simple "God bless you," or "Godspeed," as they go on their way will not fall on deaf ears. As an additional note for evangelizing, it occurred to me that I could have a small sign, needlework in the window, or lawn ornament that depicted a blessing, Scripture verse, or saint, so that whoever even knocks on our door will know who we are and what we stand for, and will shape their reaction accordingly.
I mention all this because I did have an encounter today with a doorknocker that convinced me I needed to write all this down. His name was Lawrence, and he volunteers for a missing children's outreach, Operation Lookout. He seemed puzzled by all my questions, but I carefully explained (just being honest) that we have a lot of solicitors come through and I wanted to know who I was dealing with before I donated. I gave him $12 and he gave me a nifty calculator (which, as a tightwad, I use frequently). I had him check over my pepper spray key chain and he gave me some info about that, and he mentioned as an aside that he fixed houses up and rented or sold them. Now I wish I had asked him for some advice on remodeling, but he seemed like he needed to go. But all in all I'd say I got a good deal.
Godspeed, Lawrence.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
It's a Blaine Shame
Whenever current events are concerned, I always tell people that I'm behind on the news--unless it's something of 9/11 proportions--because news in general really stresses me out and depresses me, so I avoid it.
But I am usually not 130 years behind.
It was about that long ago that a certain Henry G. Blaine introduced an amendment to the Federal Constitution that would forever ban any revenues from the government going to support "sectarian" institutions--e.g., Catholic schools. He was taking advantage of a particularly strong current of anti-Catholic feeling among Protestants and "nativists" (those who objected to the hordes of unwashed Catholics showing up on their shores). Well, the amendment failed by only 4 votes, and Blaine wasn't even there to vote on it. But that's not the end of the history lesson.
Since the failure of the "Blaine Amendment," 38 states went on to adopt versions of this legislation in their state constitutions. Adoption of Blaine-syle legislation was, in fact, often a condition of acceptance into the Union for western states. Since controversy surrounding the immigrant problem has faded, so has public memory of the legal veracity of these laws--but they remain on the books. In fact, since they were written using rather general terms (referring to "sectarian" institutions and "religious" purposes, rather than singling out Catholics by name), they are now being interpreted ever more broadly in accordance with the current trend of scouring public schools and spaces of religious references. But the fact is that these laws are unconstitutional--and the Supreme Court knows it.
The legal fallacy these laws fall under is called "religious gerrymandering." Kyle Duncan, in a paper written for Columbia Law School in 2003 (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=expresso) points out that, while it is allowable that government might make a law for the general public good that incidentally infringes on the religious practices of some, it amounts to legalized persecution to allow public goods and services to be allotted to the general public while excluding groups that have expressly religious purposes, simply because they are religious. For instance, just because the Federal Government prohibits polygamy does not mean that they are trying to persecute Mormons. The law applies to everybody equally. However, when the State of Washington says that a blind man can't use his state-allotted funds to study to become a minister--simply because, as a minister, he believes the religion--disqualifies him, under the Washington State Constitution, to receive the funds (Witters v. Comm'n for the Blind). Witters was singled out, just because he was religious.
"But wait a minute," you say. "Isn't that just separation of Church and State? I don't see the problem here."
The problem is that the law excludes religious purposes and institutions specifically and exclusively. Said another way: the law treats all citizens equally under the law except where it excludes a certain group precisely because they are religious. Let's say 10 blind people apply to the state for funding for higher education to pursue another career. The state looks over their declared majors: Biology, Computer Science, Music, Teaching, Theology, Master of Divinity, Comparative Religion, Basket-weaving, Forestry, and Criminal Justice. "Hm..." says the state official. "These all look OK except Theology and Master of Divinity. Now, Master of Divinity is right out, since that is a career path leading to the ministry, and we have a law on the books that says nobody can use our money who actually believes in their religion. What about the Theology major? Let's call him up and ask if he actually believes in any specific religion, or if he simply wants to study religion in the abstract, like the Comparative Religion major. If he doesn't believe, it's OK. If he does, then that counts as furthering a religious or sectarian institution and he can't have the funds." Now, if you can come up with a clearer-cut case of discrimination, I'll brew the coffee.
Here's another example. A religious group, wishing to practice a religious rite involving animal sacrifice, finds themselves the object of hasty animal-rights legislation that penalizes their religious activity while allowing the general industry of meatpacking to go on. It's OK for everybody else, except the religious group--because they want to do it as part of their religious practices. Now, if you were to flip these situations on their backsides, and say that it's OK for Mormons to have polygamy, or African cults to sacrifice animals, or blind divinity students to receive public funds, but no one else--these would all be violations of the Establishment Clause. The law can't single out religious groups for certain favors not extended to everyone else, but neither can they withhold resources that are commonly available simply because the applicant is religious or intends to use his share of the resources for religious uses.
On the contrary, the First Amendment Free Speech and Non-Establishment clauses tend to uphold the equal rights of all citizens to have access to benefits generally available to everyone, without regard to their religious affiliation. Hence, the state can't deny welfare benefits to Muslims because they're religious. Schools can't let any kind of club under the sun use their facilities while prohibiting religious clubs from enjoying the same privilege. The Supreme Court has actually developed quite a clean record of respecting people's religious freedoms, when they get the chance. However, at the State level, violations abound as many State Blaine-style laws go far beyond the FS/NE Clauses, as the Witters cases demonstrate.
So now you have the background, I can plainly name the elephant in the room. Thanks to Mr. Blaine and a century of legislative fox-trotting, public money is being kept out of the hands of people who actually want to exercise their religion freely. Catholic parents who want to send their children to Catholic schools are effectively taxed twice when they are denied the option to use whatever portion of public resources is theirs to educate their children in a way that is in line with their religion. Instead, they have to fork out ever-increasing tuition fees on top of their taxes in order to educate their children as conscience dictates. They are singled out in a silent way, since the money is taken out in taxes and no justification is ever advanced as to why they cannot participate equally in the educational benefits doled out by the state.
How do Catholics deal with this? Sadly, many Catholics have few options but to send their kids to public schools. Some can pay for private education if mom works. Some can't even do that. The home-schooling movement appears to be flourishing--for now--but isn't a viable option for everybody. The net result of the current system, I believe, tends to reinforce religious indifference for the Catholic. Catholic parents I've spoken to seem to put an unofficial "cap" on their family size when they get to the point where anxiety sets in about how they're going to pay for a proper Catholic education. The problem is that, while wanting to be good Catholics who educate their children in accord with Church teaching, they end up in a contraceptive mentality that dictates family size in accordance with perceived future costs--which is not Catholic teaching at all.
But I am usually not 130 years behind.
It was about that long ago that a certain Henry G. Blaine introduced an amendment to the Federal Constitution that would forever ban any revenues from the government going to support "sectarian" institutions--e.g., Catholic schools. He was taking advantage of a particularly strong current of anti-Catholic feeling among Protestants and "nativists" (those who objected to the hordes of unwashed Catholics showing up on their shores). Well, the amendment failed by only 4 votes, and Blaine wasn't even there to vote on it. But that's not the end of the history lesson.
Since the failure of the "Blaine Amendment," 38 states went on to adopt versions of this legislation in their state constitutions. Adoption of Blaine-syle legislation was, in fact, often a condition of acceptance into the Union for western states. Since controversy surrounding the immigrant problem has faded, so has public memory of the legal veracity of these laws--but they remain on the books. In fact, since they were written using rather general terms (referring to "sectarian" institutions and "religious" purposes, rather than singling out Catholics by name), they are now being interpreted ever more broadly in accordance with the current trend of scouring public schools and spaces of religious references. But the fact is that these laws are unconstitutional--and the Supreme Court knows it.
The legal fallacy these laws fall under is called "religious gerrymandering." Kyle Duncan, in a paper written for Columbia Law School in 2003 (http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1044&context=expresso) points out that, while it is allowable that government might make a law for the general public good that incidentally infringes on the religious practices of some, it amounts to legalized persecution to allow public goods and services to be allotted to the general public while excluding groups that have expressly religious purposes, simply because they are religious. For instance, just because the Federal Government prohibits polygamy does not mean that they are trying to persecute Mormons. The law applies to everybody equally. However, when the State of Washington says that a blind man can't use his state-allotted funds to study to become a minister--simply because, as a minister, he believes the religion--disqualifies him, under the Washington State Constitution, to receive the funds (Witters v. Comm'n for the Blind). Witters was singled out, just because he was religious.
"But wait a minute," you say. "Isn't that just separation of Church and State? I don't see the problem here."
The problem is that the law excludes religious purposes and institutions specifically and exclusively. Said another way: the law treats all citizens equally under the law except where it excludes a certain group precisely because they are religious. Let's say 10 blind people apply to the state for funding for higher education to pursue another career. The state looks over their declared majors: Biology, Computer Science, Music, Teaching, Theology, Master of Divinity, Comparative Religion, Basket-weaving, Forestry, and Criminal Justice. "Hm..." says the state official. "These all look OK except Theology and Master of Divinity. Now, Master of Divinity is right out, since that is a career path leading to the ministry, and we have a law on the books that says nobody can use our money who actually believes in their religion. What about the Theology major? Let's call him up and ask if he actually believes in any specific religion, or if he simply wants to study religion in the abstract, like the Comparative Religion major. If he doesn't believe, it's OK. If he does, then that counts as furthering a religious or sectarian institution and he can't have the funds." Now, if you can come up with a clearer-cut case of discrimination, I'll brew the coffee.
Here's another example. A religious group, wishing to practice a religious rite involving animal sacrifice, finds themselves the object of hasty animal-rights legislation that penalizes their religious activity while allowing the general industry of meatpacking to go on. It's OK for everybody else, except the religious group--because they want to do it as part of their religious practices. Now, if you were to flip these situations on their backsides, and say that it's OK for Mormons to have polygamy, or African cults to sacrifice animals, or blind divinity students to receive public funds, but no one else--these would all be violations of the Establishment Clause. The law can't single out religious groups for certain favors not extended to everyone else, but neither can they withhold resources that are commonly available simply because the applicant is religious or intends to use his share of the resources for religious uses.
On the contrary, the First Amendment Free Speech and Non-Establishment clauses tend to uphold the equal rights of all citizens to have access to benefits generally available to everyone, without regard to their religious affiliation. Hence, the state can't deny welfare benefits to Muslims because they're religious. Schools can't let any kind of club under the sun use their facilities while prohibiting religious clubs from enjoying the same privilege. The Supreme Court has actually developed quite a clean record of respecting people's religious freedoms, when they get the chance. However, at the State level, violations abound as many State Blaine-style laws go far beyond the FS/NE Clauses, as the Witters cases demonstrate.
So now you have the background, I can plainly name the elephant in the room. Thanks to Mr. Blaine and a century of legislative fox-trotting, public money is being kept out of the hands of people who actually want to exercise their religion freely. Catholic parents who want to send their children to Catholic schools are effectively taxed twice when they are denied the option to use whatever portion of public resources is theirs to educate their children in a way that is in line with their religion. Instead, they have to fork out ever-increasing tuition fees on top of their taxes in order to educate their children as conscience dictates. They are singled out in a silent way, since the money is taken out in taxes and no justification is ever advanced as to why they cannot participate equally in the educational benefits doled out by the state.
How do Catholics deal with this? Sadly, many Catholics have few options but to send their kids to public schools. Some can pay for private education if mom works. Some can't even do that. The home-schooling movement appears to be flourishing--for now--but isn't a viable option for everybody. The net result of the current system, I believe, tends to reinforce religious indifference for the Catholic. Catholic parents I've spoken to seem to put an unofficial "cap" on their family size when they get to the point where anxiety sets in about how they're going to pay for a proper Catholic education. The problem is that, while wanting to be good Catholics who educate their children in accord with Church teaching, they end up in a contraceptive mentality that dictates family size in accordance with perceived future costs--which is not Catholic teaching at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
