Discrimination
A. Preliminary mapping of the territory involved and defining of terms
- Good and bad discrimination
- A story: Prejudice in high places
- Christian discernment v. Christian prejudice
A1. Good and bad discrimination
'Discrimination' is not necessarily a morally dubious activity. It can refer to the process by which we come to recognise and appreciate individuality and difference. For instance, on looking at a meadow, or even a large lawn, it may appear to be just that - one mass of the same green grass. Closer attention, however, will likely reveal that it comprises several different grasses, along with daisies and mosses. This 'appreciation of difference' meaning of discrimination is here referred to as 'discernment', which applied to human beings is a morally necessary and desirable skill.
The 'discrimination' which is highly questionable morally involves attitudes and actions towards others which are not based on real and relevant differences. They are based instead on independently arrived at preconceptions. In so far as real differences are recognised at all, they may be used as a pretext to treat the 'others' in ways which are demeaning of their common humanity. For instance: "some gypsies living in caravans make a mess and some are involved in petty theft, therefore all gypsies should be treated with disdain and every possible discouragement found to keep them away". This form of discrimination is referred to here as 'prejudice'.
This distinction is important. Discernment involves proper appreciation. It discriminates between the behaviour of particular gypsies and gypsies more generally, with their preference for a nomadic life-style. It therefore provides the basis for making a moral challenge to prejudice against gypsies. In the same way, discernment is a sure means for challenging false impressions on any front.
A2. A story: Prejudice in high places
The famous incident is reported in chapters 11 and 12 of 2 Samuel. King David spies Bathsheba bathing. He invites her over and they have sexual intercourse, as a result of which she becomes pregnant. David calls her husband Uri back from the current military campaign on the pretext of finding how it's going, but actually wanting him to meet up with his wife. If they make love, his own responsibility for her pregnancy will be hidden. Uri declines; sense of duty to the national cause is more important than family interest. David's alternative strategy is therefore to arrange for Uri to become a war casualty... After all this has happened, the king has a visit from the prophet Nathan:
"Nathan went to him and said, "There were two men who lived in the same town; one was rich and the other poor. The rich man had many cattle and sheep, while the poor man had only one lamb, which he had bought. He took care of it, and it grew up in his home with his children. He would feed it some of his own food, let it drink from his cup, and hold it in his lap. The lamb was like a daughter to him. One day a visitor arrived at the rich man's home. The rich man didn't want to kill one of his own animals to fix a meal for him; instead, he took the poor man's lamb and prepared a meal for his guest." David became very angry at the rich man and said, "I swear by the living Lord that the man who did this ought to die! For having done such a cruel thing, he must pay back four times as much as he took." "You are that man," (2 Sam 12: 1-7).
David is not seeing straight. His perception of reality is distorted to such an extent that he fails to recognise the worth of another human being. His erotic ambitions enable him to justify the contrivance by which the rival in his way will be removed. The block, which makes use of ethnic association (Uri is not Israeli, but Hitti), tunnels his vision. Hearing the prophet's tale, he suddenly sees things as they really are. Discernment opens his eyes wider and prejudice is exposed as mean-minded self-interest.
A3. Christian discernment v. Christian prejudice
Critics of Christianity, as of other religions, often make the accusation of small-mindedness. Whatever may be its ideals, they say, in practice people who describe themselves as Christians do so to justify what is their own narrow point of view.
There is some truth in this. Academic studies have suggested that there can be greater prejudice against eg: unmarried mothers, homosexuals, immigrants, Jews (or more recently Muslims) amongst Christians than amongst those with no institutional religious attachment. And yet, at the same time, it is undeniable that Christians have often taken a lead in challenging prejudice. This contradictory conundrum is best explained by scrutinising those who call themselves Christians. What then emerges is that for some it is a label of convenience. It goes with a certain set of personal assumptions, without having any prophetic 'bite' from the gospel. In other words, their prejudice coincides with the fact that their understanding of Christianity lacks discernment. By contrast, from Christians for whom the faith is fundamental to their lives, prejudice is challenged. It is exposed as wilfully shutting out fellow humans beings and ignoring the spirit of God in the world.
On each of the moral issues within the general area of discrimination which follow, it will be important to acknowledge any respects in which Christians sometimes become part of the problem. For the most part, however, the emphasis is on resources in Christianity for challenging prejudice and negative discrimination.