Several years ago, when my daughter Carissa was about to enter her first gymnastics competition, I wrote her a letter expressing my hopes and goals for her athletic experience. Here’s a revised version:

My dearest Carissa,

I know you’ve worked hard to prepare yourself to compete and how much you want to win. That’s a good goal. You will always get the best out of yourself when you strive for victory.

But winning is not the only goal or even the most important one. What’s most important is to have fun and learn. I want you to love the sport so much that you find pleasure in the effort itself and in the friendship of your teammates and other competitors.

I want you to know you can do well – no matter who takes home the medals – if you do your best. And you will be a winner if you keep getting better. I want you to pursue excellence with all your heart, not to please me or your mom or anyone else, but to experience the joy of accomplishment.

If you wobble, keep going. If you fall, get up and continue. No matter what happens, keep your head high. Don’t give up or give in. If things don’t go your way, don’t cry, whine, or make excuses.

Always conduct yourself in a way that brings honor to your team, your coaches, your family and, above all, yourself. I want you to be a model of good sportsmanship, treating the sport, its rules, your teammates, other competitors, and judges with respect.

But most of all, I want you to know how proud of you I am.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:07 AM | Permalink | Comment (3)

A high school football coach wrote to tell me his team was going to the state finals, but he was troubled. An English teacher had caught three of his players cheating on an exam they had to pass to remain eligible. He told the coach he had passed them anyway, “for the good of the school.”

The coach realized if his players had not really passed the test, they were ineligible and, according to league rules, all games in which they had played must be forfeited, and his team must be disqualified from the finals.

The coach asked me, “What good would it do to report the ineligibility?” The players who committed the act would be devastated, and the ones who didn’t would be unfairly denied their shot at the championship. Parents, players, and others would be furious. The English teacher would get in big-time trouble, and he, the coach, might lose his job. “Wouldn’t the greater good be accomplished if I just kept quiet?” he asked.

Of course not. Although it would take great moral courage to do the right thing – play by the rules and let the chips fall where they may – I told him that’s precisely what he should do.

There were many stakeholders involved (people who would be affected by the decision), and the coach was duty-bound to use his teaching platform to send an unequivocal positive message about honor and integrity. Failing to do so would deprive another team of its right to go to the finals. Looking the other way would undermine his credibility.

It’s a high price to pay, but as the years go by, the decision to pursue the path of honor will be an enduring gift to his players and community.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comment (3)

Ethics is a popular topic at corporate meetings today because management correctly sees the benefits. Good things tend to happen to companies that consistently do the right thing, and bad things tend to happen to those that even occasionally do the wrong thing. Being ethical is playing the odds.

Ethical companies have a competitive edge because people prefer to deal with firms they trust. They also benefit from high credibility; being believed is an enormous asset. In addition, ethical companies attract and retain employees better because they have higher morale. And finally, good ethics generates a good reputation, good will, and loyalty.

So it’s true: Good ethics is good business.

Most companies try to motivate employees to be ethical by stressing how doing so will benefit the corporation. The problem is, this amoral rationale is grounded in self-interest rather than morality. It has nothing to do with ethics.

Doing the right thing to get something in return is an investment, not a demonstration of character. Ethics based on self-interest is situational; ethics based on moral convictions is reliable. It’s the difference between acting ethically and being ethical.

Trying to motivate people to do the right thing by stressing benefits rather than values and virtue turns decision making into a cold cost-benefit analysis rather than a reflection of what’s right.

But if a company encourages employees to make decisions based on the supposed advantages, why should anyone put their firm’s interests above their own? In the absence of authentic moral conviction, why should employees refrain from unethical or illegal conduct if they think it will save their job or enhance their compensation? Clearly, what’s good for an enterprise is not always good for its employees.

My point is, it’s foolish and fruitless to expect most employees to sacrifice their financial well-being for the good of the company. On the other hand, many will do so in the name of honor, as a matter of conscience, and to earn the esteem and admiration of family and friends.

Corporations have a much better chance of deterring improper conduct by appealing to conscience and principle rather than risks and rewards.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comment (4)

Long ago, I entered law school wanting to do good. I left more concerned with doing well.

In an atmosphere dominated by raging competitive instincts, persuasive rationalizations, and real economic pressures, cynicism drowned out idealism. My notion of the legal system as a grand forum for the pursuit of truth and justice was reduced to the idea that, in the end, it was just an adversarial game with a less noble purpose: win!

But it’s not just lawyers who are vulnerable to mission drift.

The idealistic drive of people who enter politics to pursue their personal version of the public good can be crushed or converted by real politics. It’s not easy to solve complicated problems in a world dominated by clashing convictions, limited resources, out-sized egos, and consuming personal ambitions. And so, the acquisition and retention of power, initially the means to an end, becomes the end itself – the measure of success is winning.

If you’re involved in youth sports, you too may be the victim of mission drift.

Is youth sports really a recreational and educational activity designed to allow children to have fun and develop valuable life skills, or is it just an early field of combat teaching the lesson that it, in the end, it’s just about winning?

These questions are probed in a challenging online assessment designed by the Josephson Institute to identify the core beliefs and values of the parents who support their children’s involvement in sports and the coaches and other adults who administer the programs.

Take a look at the survey at www.charactercounts.org/sports.

I suspect some of you will find a gap between your ideals and the reality you create or condone.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)

My brother Barry is among the majority of commentators on the blog who disagree with my position that opposition to the plans regarding the Muslim Mosque and Community Center in New York is un-American. We debated the issue via a series of emails. Here are key excerpts:

Barry: Frankly, I don't think that we are obligated to take the supporters of the mosque at face value when it comes to their "intent," and even if it were reasonable to do so, a mosque at Ground Zero certainly could be (and would be) reasonably perceived by many to symbolize something very, very different (and something very, very negative). At best, the plan to build a mosque and Muslim community center at Ground Zero is ill-conceived, insensitive, and politically naive.

Moreover, neither the builders of the mosque, you, nor anyone else can define what the mosque would truly be a symbol of -- things are symbolic of what they are reasonably understood to be symbolic of. In this case, regardless of whether the true intent was genuinely to promote unity or something else positive, putting a mosque where the Twin Towers once stood is a powerful symbol (even if an unintentional one) that the terrorists have won by clearing out a symbol of American might (and values?) by violence so that it can be replaced with a symbol of Islam. And to many, for Americans to tolerate that would be much more a symbol of American weakness, stupidity, and gullibility than a re-affirmation of American ideals of pluralism.

If the Muslim community wants to show its sorrow, regret, and rejection of terrorism, it should erect a powerful and completely unambiguous expression of such beliefs (or, perhaps, a powerful, completely unambiguous symbol of American values), not something that is, at best, a self-serving mixed message and, at worst, a symbol of something the complete opposite of the purported message.

Michael: Presumably, the folks building the mosque and community center are American citizens. I do not think there is ANY doubt that they have a Constitutional right to build where they want and I refuse to assume bad faith because they are Muslims and they all act in bad faith.

I believe in the spirit of our Constitution and the notions of due process and respect for others regardless of their race, ethnicity, or religion, and I am convinced the attitudes supporting the prejudice against Muslims are fundamentally unconstitutional, un-American, and unethical.

Barry: Trying to focus the issue on whether at least part of the objections is based on racism (or, more accurately, anti-Muslim animus), which I concede is unquestionably part of the basis for the objections, ignores my primary points:

(1) While I don't believe that the supporters of the project are required to explain why building the mosque and community center on the site is anti-terrorist and/or pro-American, they have apparently chosen to do so. If, as I believe, the professed motives make no sense, I would categorize them as false, if not intentionally duplicitous.

Michael: It makes sense on several levels: 1) an affirmative effort to make it clear that all Muslims are not terrorists, 2) genuinely believing that Muslims died in 9/11, helped rescue folks, and serve in the Army, etc. justifies not accepting the emotional prejudice reaction 3) folks like Mayor Bloomberg and I accept this as a valid and right gesture that as Americans we should welcome.

Barry: (2) Regardless of the true motivations, building a mosque at Ground Zero sends a message which is diametrically opposed to the professed point of building it. At best, doing so is counterproductive and stupid -- and just because they have the right to be stupid, doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticized for being stupid.

Do you remember the scene in the movie Gandhi in which a Hindu man comes to Gandhi and asks him how he could avoid hell after murdering a Muslim child? Gandhi tells him to find a similar parentless Muslim boy and raise him as Muslim. No, I am not suggesting that there is an equivalency between the Hindu who went to Gandhi (who, himself, was the direct murderer of the Muslim boy) and any Muslim who was not personally responsible for 9/11; rather my point was that to the extent that a Hindu wants to atone for an injury to a Muslim (whether due to direct guilt or as a way of symbolically distancing himself from co-religionists who were guilty), he should do so by helping Muslims or building a monument to Muslims or Islam, not by building a Mandir or ashram. Likewise, if Muslims want to distance themselves from 9/11, building a mosque is simply the wrong way to do it.

Furthermore, proceeding in face of vehement opposition (whether or not that opposition is fair or not, or based on prejudice or not) is like Otto in A Fish Called Wanda (the character played by Kevin Kline) literally putting a gun to the head of Archie (the character played by John Cleese) in order to get Archie to accept Otto's "apology" for an earlier wrong. I'm sorry, but no matter how sincere Otto may have been, one has to "apologize" in a manner acceptable to the "injured party,” and when that doesn't happen, it is neither an apology, atonement, nor a symbol of solidarity. At the very least, it shows a high degree of insensitivity.

Michael: The insensitivity may be to the depth of genuine bigotry underlying much of the opposition and an underestimation (of which I am guilty as well) of how many smart and decent people would jump on the anti-Muslim passions.

Barry: (3) I agree that it is unreasonable, unfair, and "racist" to simply assume the all Muslims are liars, but if it’s true [as one YouTube video argues] that Islamic culture views duplicity as a perfectly acceptable tactic in the struggles against non-Muslims, is it unreasonable to give less credence to followers of Islam than to those from cultures who place a relatively higher societal value on truth?

Michael: I do not accept the taking of isolated quotations from individuals we know nothing about as statements that represent the mainstream of the culture or religion. There are many horrible passages in the Old Testament and many rabbis, priests, and popes who have said things that do not represent the core of their religions. It is like taking the comments of any Congressman/woman and concluding it represents the American point of view.

Barry: A fair point. Furthermore, there is no question that all Muslims have had to bear prejudice on account of the actions of some, and there can be no doubt that this is unfair, dangerous, and un-American. Still, can it be denied that the deafening silence of both individual Muslims and the Muslim community as a whole has lent credence to the belief that it is a matter of "them" vs. "us"?

Yes, many individual Muslims do preach brotherhood and tolerance and speak out against terrorism, but do they do so as frequently or vehemently as they should, especially when elsewhere their co-religionists literally dance in the streets to "celebrate" 9/11 and similar attacks? Doesn't the openness and extremity of the "wrong" responses by "bad" Muslims call for equally open and strong condemnations by "good" Muslim's to make clear what side they are on? Is it surprising or unreasonable that a failure to speak out clearly is taken as at least tacit approval of terrorism?

Michael: There may be powerful inside pressures and concepts of loyalty and unity explaining the relative silence which I agree is disturbing), but concluding consent from silence in this context is a stretch and another violation of our fundamental principles.

Barry: I do not dispute the constitutional right of the Muslim community to build a mosque and related buildings at Ground Zero, but rather both the sincerity of the professed motives and especially the wisdom of doing so. In the end, the issue is much like the question of whether the Nazis should have been allowed to march through Skokie -- maybe (indeed, probably) it cannot or should not be prohibited, but that doesn't mean that people have to like it or that those who act stupidly or irresponsibly (despite their right to do so), can't or shouldn't be criticized for doing so.

Michael: In the Nazi case the bad motives and the personal beliefs of the individual marchers were of little doubt, but it is our reaction that is more important than their motivation. I think the decision to allow such marches is a high point in American law and tradition while allowing the internment camps of the Japanese was a low point. I am much more concerned with our reaction. Even if the Muslims involved are as bad as the Nazis we should be un-intimidated and undeterred from supporting their right in this great land to be obnoxious.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:53 PM | Permalink | Comment (16)

Terry and his dad Glen were walking along the shore and came upon a scorpion struggling in the tide, trying to get back to the sand. Glen tried to scoop the creature up, but the scorpion stung him and fell back into the tide. Glen tried again and was stung again.

Terry said, "Dad, leave him alone! He’s not worth saving."

But Glen tried one more time. This time he was successful and threw it onto the sand.

Terry said, "Why waste time on an ornery critter who’s too stupid to know it’s being helped?"

Glen answered, "Son, the scorpion stings by instinct. It’s his nature. I chose to help him because that’s my nature."

Glen was teaching his son a profound moral lesson about being human. Like other species, we’re born with an instinct for survival and a disposition towards selfishness. Yet, blessed by a sense of compassion and the power to reason, we also have an instinct to think and act beyond our self-interest.

Human nature is complex. It’s as much in our nature to be kind, loving, and generous as it is to be cruel, selfish, and dishonest. We can nurture or ignore our nobler instincts.

Some people act like scorpions. Trapped by negative instincts and response patterns, they think it’s their nature and hide behind the belief, "That’s the way I am."

No one is born with good or bad character. We’re born with the capacity to have either, to choose our ultimate nature. When we choose to be good, we are good.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comment (7)

There’s a nice poem circulating on the Internet about a woman who bought some cookies and a book at an airport and sat down to read and nibble while waiting for her plane. She soon noticed a man sitting next to her, who casually took a cookie from the bag.

Although shocked and seething, the woman remained silent as the man, without the slightest sign of shame or gratitude, quietly helped himself, matching her cookie for cookie.

When there was one cookie left, she watched in amazement as he picked it up, smiled at her as if he were being gracious, and broke it in half. He ate one half and gave her the other. Congratulating herself for maintaining her cool, she said nothing to this rude cookie thief, astonished at the nerve of some people.

Later, when she was settling into her seat on the plane, she rummaged through her purse and discovered the bag of cookies she’d purchased, still unopened. The moral message is contained in the poem’s closing stanza:

"If mine are here," she moaned with despair,
"Then the others were his, and he tried to share."
Too late to apologize, she realized with grief,
That she was the rude one, the ingrate, the thief.

Being sure is not the same as being right. Certainty without humility can lead to self-righteousness that distorts our view and understanding of the world and of people.

Humility does not require us to be equivocal or doubtful about our deepest convictions about religion and right and wrong. What it asks is that we hold and advocate our beliefs without dismissing the possibility that others may be right, too. Or, as in the cookie case, instead.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

*To read the full poem by Valerie Cox, click here.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 3:52 PM | Permalink | Comment (2)

Many people see a close connection between religion and ethics for good reason: ethical principles like love, compassion, mercy, charity, and justice are common foundations to all major religions.

This doesn’t mean that religious beliefs are essential to ethical conduct or that everyone who professes to be religious is virtuous. History is full of examples of hypocritical and exploitive religious leaders and persecutions and terrorism carried out under the banner of religion.

Still, when done right, the moral education of many people comes in the context of religious education and there is a positive correlation between authentic religious convictions and good character.

That’s why I was fascinated by a huge 2008 study* based on interviews of 30,000 Americans by the Pew Foundation. Here are some highlights:

• Religion is deeply entrenched in the American culture – 56 percent say religion is very important in their lives, 82% say it’s somewhat important – only 7% say it’s not important at all.


• While one in four (24%) believe their religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life, most, 70%, believe that many religions can lead to eternal life. A similar percentage (68%) believe there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.


• Americans believe in prayer. More than 90% (93%), pray outside of religious services and nearly 60% pray at least once a day.


• Of those who pray, 90% believe they received a definite answer to a specific prayer request; 62% believe they receive direct answers to their prayers at least once a month.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
________________________________________________________

* The study comprehensively details the belief patterns of the 14 largest religious traditions. Here is a more complete summary of key findings I found interesting:

BELIEFS

• BELIEF IN GOD. 92% believe in God or a universal spirit; only 8% say they do not believe.


• ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. 71% say they are absolutely certain in their belief in God.



- 90% of members of Evangelical Christian, historically black, and Mormon churches are absolutely certain in their beliefs in God compared to 82% of Muslims, 73% Mainline Protestant churches, 72% Catholics, 45% Hindu, 35% Buddhist, and 31% Jews.



• PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL GOD. 60% believe that God is a person with whom they can have a relationship; 25% believe God is an impersonal force.



- 91% of Mormons, 79% of Christian Evangelicals, 60% of Catholics believe in a personal god with whom they could have a relationship compared to 20% of Buddhists, 25% of Jews, 31% of Hindus, and 41% of Muslims.



• AFFILIATED WITH FORMAL RELIGION. 61% of Americans identify themselves as official members of a local church or house of worship.


• IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION. 56 percent say religion is very important in their lives, and 82% say it’s somewhat important – only 7% say it’s not important at all.



- 85% of those affiliated with historically black churches say religion is very important, as do 83% of Mormons, 79% of Christian Evangelicals, 72% of Muslims, 56% of Catholics, and 52% of Christian mainline Protestants.



• ONE AND ONLY TRUE RELIGION. 24% believe their religion is the one, true faith leading to eternal life; most, 70%, believe that many religions can lead to eternal life.



- 89% of Hindu, 86% of Buddhists, 83% of Mainline Protestants, 82% of Jews, and 79% of Catholics believe that many different religions can lead to eternal life, compared with 39% of the Mormons, 56% of Muslims, and 59% of historically black Protestants.



• ONLY ONE TRUE INTERPRETATION OF THEIR RELIGION. More than two-thirds (68%) believe there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion.



- 90% of Buddhists, 89% of Jews, and 85% of Hindus believe there is more than one true way to interpret their own religion compared to 43% of Mormons, 53% of Christian Evangelicals, and 57% of those affiliated with historically black Protestant churches.



• PRAYER. 93% say they pray – 82% at least once a month, and 58% at least once a day.


• RECEIVED ANSWER TO PRAYER. Of those who pray, 90% believe they received a definite answer to a specific prayer request; 62% believe they receive direct answers to their prayers at least once a month.


• RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 60% of those who have children living at home send them to Sunday school or another religious education program.


• HEAVEN AND HELL. 74% believe there is a heaven, where people who have led good lives are eternally rewarded; 59% believe there is a hell, where people who have led bad lives and die without being sorry are eternally punished.


• DIVINE HEALING. 36% have experienced or witnessed a divine healing of an illness or injury.


• RELIGIOUS STUDY. 45% read scripture outside of religious services at least once a month.


• MIRACLES. 47% believe miracles still occur today as in ancient times.


• ANGELS AND DEMONS. 40% believe that angels and demons are active in the world.


• GENDER IMPACT. Men are more likely to claim no religious affiliation than women (20% versus 13%).


• INTER-MARRIAGE. 37% of those who are married are married to someone with a different religious affiliation (this includes Protestant denomination such as a Methodist marrying a Baptist).


• RACE AND ETHNICITY. Of all major racial and ethnic groups in the U.S., black Americans are most likely to report a religious affiliation.


• SOCIAL IMPACT OF RELIGION. 34% believe religion causes more problems in society than it solves.


• RIGHT AND WRONG. 78% believe there are clear and absolute standards for what is right and wrong.


• RELIGION AND POLITICS. 50% say churches and other houses of worship should express their views on day-to-day social and political questions.


• IMPACT OF ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY. 42% say they often feel that their values are threatened by Hollywood and the entertainment industry.


• CONFLICT BETWEEN RELIGION AND MODERN LIFE. 40% think there is a natural conflict between being a devout religious person and living in a modern society.


• EVOLUTION. 48% believe that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth, 45% disagree, and 7% say they don’t know.


• SOCIAL AND POLITICAL BELIEFS



- LIFE SATISFACTION. 86% are satisfied with the way things are going in their personal lives; 75% are very satisfied with their family life; only 5% say they are dissatisfied.




- GOVERNMENT ROLE IN ISSUES OF MORALITY. 52% worry that government is getting too involved in the issue of morality; 40% think the government should do more to protect morality in society.




- HOMOSEXUALITY. 50% believe homosexuality should be accepted by society.




- ABORTION. 51% believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases; 16% say it should be illegal in all cases.




- SOCIAL SERVICES. 62% think the government should do more to help needy Americans, even if it means going deeper into debt.




- ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS. 61% believe that stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost.




- COMMUNITY SERVICE. 65% do community volunteer work through their place of worship; 46% do so at least several times per year.




- SOCIAL LIFE AND RELIGION. 78% participate in social activities, such as meals and club meetings or other gatherings at their place of worship; 39% do so at least monthly.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:13 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)

I love this country. I love our Constitution, the truths declared to be self-evident in the Declaration of Independence, the political and religious rights created by the Bill of Rights, and our long and deep heritage of tolerance and Due Process.

I disagree with a sect of "politically correct" liberals who are often too quick to call others racists and bigots and who would ban speech they find offensive. But I am equally dismayed by a vocal branch of conservatives who seek to bully and intimidate anyone with differing perspectives. Both groups seem to prefer diatribes over dialogue, partisan politics over democratic principles. Sometimes, unencumbered by notions of fair play and respect, they generate lots of heat but not much light.

Consider the controversy surrounding a plan to build a 13-story mosque and Muslim community center near Ground Zero and dedicate it on September 11th. The date was deliberately chosen not as a slap in the face or stab to the heart, as some have chosen to interpret it, but as an explicit gesture of unity. According to its developers, including the American Society for Muslim Advancement, the mosque/community center is to be built with the express intent to promote "integration, tolerance of difference, and community cohesion through arts and culture" based on the Islamic values of "compassion, generosity, and respect for all."

Though Sarah Palin's request that New Yorkers and peaceful Muslims "refudiate" (that’s her word) the project has politicized the issue, this is not a matter on which liberals and conservatives should disagree.

Both continually cite and support the Constitution. How can anyone who understands our political system justify opposing a place of worship for the world's second largest religion simply because it is to be built within two blocks of the scene of a crime committed by a terrorist group who also call themselves Muslims?

Blaming all Muslims for the acts of a few is simply un-American.

The American way is to build bridges, not walls.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.
______________________________________________________

Notes:

I came across a particularly thoughtful commentary on this subject by scholar and historian Juan Cole on his blog Informed Comment.

Cole writes, “A tiny fringe cult destroyed the Twin Towers in New York, not Islam in general (a religion of 1.5 billion human beings which could well be the religion of 3 billion human beings by mid-century). A monument to Usama Bin Laden or al-Qaeda would be in poor taste. A mosque, built anywhere in the United States, is not.”

Cole goes on to explain the Islamic laws of war, which forbid sneak attacks and the killing of non-combatants, women, and children. He then provides several examples supporting his claim that “forbidding the building of a mosque in New York is inconsistent with the ideals of the Founding Generation of the United States of America, who explicitly mentioned Islam among the cases when they spoke of religious freedom.”

*

I was also impressed with an editorial by Kelly Hertz, Managing Editor of the Yankton Press & Dakotan. In "Our Opinion: A Mosque Near Ground Zero – Old Wounds,” Hertz writes:

“It must be understood everywhere that the current war on terror that was unleashed on 9/11 is not a war against Muslims. It is not another Christian crusade against a religion that is foreign to ours. Instead, this war is a response to an attack by Islamic radicals who do not represent the Islamic faith. To see it otherwise is to do an injustice to Muslims, to America and to the dead of 9/11, some of whom were also Muslim. . . .

"Thus, the building of a mosque/community center near Ground Zero should not be seen as a desecration of the memory of 9/11. The developers of the project say it is intended to celebrate a common humanity and harmony. And who can argue that those attributes need to emerge from the smoldering legacy of 9/11? . . .

"We are sometimes so overwhelmed by being wounded that we sometimes forget that we are Americans whose religious tolerance must rise above our emotions and our pain. Such a statement would stand as a greater symbol of this nation’s strength than any memorial or structure could ever represent."

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:46 AM | Permalink | Comment (144)

The bad economic news just keeps rolling in.

So what could I say to 700 bankers, investors, and lawyers deeply involved in the commercial real estate market?

I started with a simple point: external economic forces beyond our control can diminish, even decimate, every form of financial asset, but the most important asset we possess, integrity, can only be destroyed by our own choices. And those who sacrifice integrity to save their fortunes eventually lose both.

I showed a cartoon with the caption: “This might not be ethical. Is that a problem for anybody?” to make the point that ethics is not simply a factor to consider; it’s a ground rule. People who treasure their integrity summon the strength to do the right thing even when it costs more than they want to pay.

Another cartoon depicted a conference table of executives. The head honcho points to a woman with an armful of blindfolds and announces: “Miss Jensen will now hand out the moral blinders.” The message: try as we might, we can’t avoid ethical responsibilities by covering our eyes. Our obligation to be honest, fair, and responsible doesn’t go away just because we refuse to acknowledge it.

Speaking of the turmoil before the American Revolution, Thomas Paine said, “These are the times that try men’s souls.” Well, tough times like these always try our souls and test our character.

The next year or so will be like a character boot camp where our moral backbone will be either strengthened or broken.

While we can’t know when, it’s absolutely certain that this dark period will end. And when it does, only those who protected and preserved their integrity will emerge with the credibility to restore everything they lost.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:25 AM | Permalink | Comment (0)

After a workshop, a fellow came up to me and complained that I had made him feel uncomfortable. "I'm not perfect," he said, "But I'm basically honest." His implication was that it's unfair to expect people to be honest all the time.

His comment reminded me of a cartoon where one fellow confides to another, "I admire Webster’s honesty, but his insistence on being scrupulously honest is really annoying."

Look, I'm not an honesty absolutist. I think it was okay to lie to Nazis to save innocent lives, and I approve of police lying during undercover operations to catch drug dealers or corrupt politicians. I also think it's okay to tell your grandmother you really like the sweater she knitted or let young children believe in the Tooth Fairy.

But be careful. It's easy to stretch these special situations into an endless chain of rationalizations that justify lying whenever it's convenient.

Every lie must be justified by competing moral principles, not simply self-interest. Some lying during criminal investigations pass muster because they are subjected to judicial review and advance a long-term public good. And there are times when "white" lies can be justified when kindness trumps truthfulness.

Otherwise, being scrupulously honest is not only possible; it's desirable and morally mandatory.

Being basically honest is not enough. It's like saying, "I really want to be honest, but not if it costs too much, not if it prevents me from getting what I want."

Honesty is crucial, not only to uphold an abstract moral principle, but to preserve one of our most important personal assets – credibility. Despite self-serving excuses, almost all lies breach trust and undermine credibility.

Once someone lies to us, even on a small thing, we always think, "What else have you lied to me about?" How many times do you get to lie before you are a liar? How many times does someone get to lie to you before distrust sets in?

Being honest only when it suits our purpose isn’t honesty at all.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:45 AM | Permalink | Comment (3)

Every time my wife and I leave a Lakers game we’re confronted by half a dozen or more beggars with outreached cups. Usually we try to avoid eye contact and pass quickly – annoyed rather than moved. I’ve got lots of justifications for this callous indifference:

"It’s a scam."
"Surely, these people have other options to begging."
"They’ll probably use the money for drugs or alcohol."
"How can I give to one or two and not all of them?"
"If I give tonight, will I have to give every other night?"
"If I give money, I’ll just encourage more people to be beggars."

When all is said and done, it’s a rather shameful exhibition of my ungenerous nature. Regardless of their character or hidden motives, these people are much less fortunate than I am. Why am I so unwilling to help? A dollar or two would be meaningful; $5 or $10 would be momentous.

The truth is, if every night I gave each one a dollar or even five, it wouldn’t affect my lifestyle one bit. I spend more than that on snacks and parking. If I made it a point to carry a bunch of ones and fives, I could, without fanfare, provide a little bit of peace or pleasure to people who need it much more than I.

As I write this, I am resolved to choose caring over judging. Yet there is a lurking self-doubt: Will I really follow through or just find more reasons not to help? Perhaps some of you are also willing to commit to kindness. If so, we can provide moral support for each other. Let me know what you think.

After all, our character is revealed not by our best intentions, but by our consistent actions.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:36 AM | Permalink | Comment (36)

There are five birds on a telephone wire. Two decide to fly south. How many are left?

No, it’s not three; it’s five. Deciding to fly south and actually flying south are two different things. The life lesson is that you’ll never get where you want to go until you point yourself in the right direction, jump off the wire, and start flapping your wings.

To justify my unseemly size, I often tell people, “I’d like to be thin – especially when I’m not hungry. The problem is, when I’m hungry or tempted by a donut, I make excuses or rationalize by drinking a Diet Coke to offset the donut.”

Actually, I’ve been pretty good lately and have lost 30 pounds – but it’s never easy. Every single day I have to point myself in the direction I want to go and jump off that wire.

In the end, it’s not my goals that determine the quality of my life; it’s my actions. When there’s a conflict between what I want now and what I want for the future, the word “later” seems so much more attractive than “now” – but it’s not a good life strategy.

I love donuts, but I’ve never had one that was so good that the pleasure lasted for more than a few moments.

The key to a happy and healthy life is to resist urges and impulses for momentary pleasures that sabotage long-term goals. Lots of things that feel good aren’t good for us, and lots of things that are fun won’t make us happy.

Giving up the good "now" for the better "later" shouldn’t be seen as a sacrifice; it’s an investment.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Comment (9)

A listener got me thinking about the challenge of dealing with aging parents who become more and more needy and the conflicts one is bound to feel. It motivated me to write this poem:

They said I was lucky my mom lived near,
But she was pretty old, and it wasn't so clear.
Sure, I was grateful for all she did for me,
But I was so very busy, I had no time free.

I had my job, my kids, my own life to live.
There really was nothing left for me to give.

I couldn't visit often, but I did help out.
I gave money, did chores, and ran her about.

But truth be told, I didn't like it that much.
The conversation was dull, and she was frail to touch.

She complained a lot, and I just felt worse.
I didn't have time to be handyman or nurse.

I could have done more -- of course I could --
But she loved me, and she understood.

I know she did because she told me so.
She wanted me to be happy -- and I pretended not to know
That she was lonely, uncomfortable, and scared of dying.
I closed my eyes to how hard she was trying
To be brave, independent, and not needy at all.
She assured me she'd be fine, even after her fall.

But now she's gone and I miss her so,
And I'm so sorry I pretended not to know
How much a call, a card, or a hug brightened her day,
Or how easy it was to chase her blues away.

I'm ashamed I felt burdened, pressured, and put out.
She deserved more than I gave her, without a doubt.

So if your mom or dad is still with you,
Don't lose the chance -- do all you can do.
Make the time, not excuses. Go the extra mile
Because your chance to do so lasts only awhile.

This is Michael Josephson, reminding you that character counts.

* After writing this poem as an attempt to convey the emotional states and stakes involved in the common challenge of dealing with aging parents, I realized many would think that the poem reflected my personal experience. It is not autobiographical. Actually, my mother died in her early 40s (I've talked about her cheerfulness and courage many times before). I meant to fool no one. As I remind my listeners and readers from time to time, I see myself not as a journalist but as a teacher. I often use discovered or created poems and parables to convey an insight or feeling that I think would inform, enlighten or uplift. We received quite a few requests for this commentary, and I sincerely hope I captured effectively the emotions of people who have actually been in the situation I describe.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:55 AM | Permalink | Comment (5)

I remember the day I told my daughter Samara, who was then five, that I was going on a trip for one night. "Please don't go, Daddy," she begged. When I wouldn't agree to stay, she threw an all-out tantrum.

I knew that was the risk when I told her. I could have said nothing and let her mother explain my absence, or I could have pretended to give in by saying that "I'd see" if I could get out of it.

Well, actually I couldn't. You see, I made a decision long before that I wanted to establish relationships of unquestioned trust with my children. And I knew that even well-intentioned lies, deceptions, and broken promises could be land mines to trust.

When she calmed down, she took a new tack: "Take me with you." When this didn't work, she came up with her final offer: "Then I want you to wear this tie." And she got a tie she had given me for Father's Day. It was a special tie, one that she'd drawn pictures on.

When I dressed for my trip, I thought of putting the tie in my briefcase and wearing one more appropriate. But a promise is a promise, so I wore the tie. During my talk I told the tie story in the context of trust, pointing out that while I was certain that my daughter would never know if I wore the tie or not, trust is too precious to take chances with.

When I returned the next afternoon, I went straight to my office. Later, my wife showed up in a surprise visit with Samara. She'd never done that before. When Samara saw I was wearing the tie, she beamed and gave me a huge hug. I was so glad I kept my promise to that little girl.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:09 AM | Permalink | Comment (1)

During a dinner with friends I mentioned an e-mail I'd received from a 13-year-old thanking me for the way my commentaries had influenced his life. I was clearly proud of the note, and Sally Kinnamon said I should save this and other affirming mementos and put them in a "Me" file.

At first I thought she was being sarcastic, but she assured me she was quite serious. Sally came upon the idea while training in-home nurses, who often work in isolated conditions with little or no affirmative feedback.

She gave each nurse an empty folder labeled "Me" and instructed them to put every form of grateful or complimentary feedback into the file, including cards, notes, letters, and positive performance reviews. She said that this folder should be taken out and read whenever any of them felt unappreciated or questioned the value of their work.

Sally acknowledged that most of the nurses were initially reluctant, fearing it was too self-indulgent, egotistical, or just plain silly, but she explained it's not a bragging file to show others how good we are. Rather, it's a private collection evidencing the large and small triumphs that give us psychic gratification and reconnect us with the best reasons we do what we do. Eventually, she said, most of the nurses came to use and draw great comfort and encouragement from their "Me" files.

What a terrific idea. You ought to start a "Me" file for yourself and put in it anything that validates what you do at work or home.

The next step, of course, is to be sure you're spending time doing the kinds of things that will fill your "Me" file.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:32 AM | Permalink | Comment (10)

A successful man known for his philanthropy was driving his new car through a poor part of town. He’d driven the route hundreds of times before on his way home.

A young boy tried to flag him down. The man was in a hurry and didn’t want to get involved, so he pretended he didn’t see the child. A traffic signal ahead turned red, though, and as he slowed for it, he heard a loud crash. The boy had thrown a brick at his car, denting the trunk.

The man burst out of the car and grabbed him. “You juvenile delinquent!" he screamed. "You’ll pay for this or go to jail!”

“I’m sorry, mister,” the boy cried. “My mom’s lying on the floor in our apartment. I think she’s dying. Our phone’s been cut off and I’ve been trying for ten minutes to get someone to stop. I didn’t know what else to do! Take me to jail, but please, call a doctor for my mom first.”

The man was filled with shame. “I’m a doctor. Where is she?” The grateful boy took him to his apartment, and the doctor administered CPR and called an ambulance.

“Will she live?” the boy sobbed.

“Yes, son, she will,” the doctor said.

“Then it’s worth going to jail. I’m so sorry I ruined your new car. You can take me in now.”

“You’re not going anywhere,” the doctor said. “It was my fault you had to throw a brick to get my attention.”

The doctor made sure the boy was taken care of, and as he drove home he resolved not to fix the dent. He would keep it as a reminder that not everyone in need has a brick to throw.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:53 AM | Permalink | Comment (4)

We know from our revolutionary origin, two World Wars, and the 9/11 attacks, that there are real enemies outside our country who would impose their will on us if we did not protect it vigorously and vigilantly.

But the idea that freedom is never free also applies to the price every citizen must pay to be part of a democratic society that reveres both rights and responsibilities.

Every law restricts someone’s personal liberty while it seeks to protect our lives, property, and fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and privacy.

We pay for our freedom by obeying laws we don’t like, paying taxes we don’t want to pay, and by refraining from conduct that interferes with the personal freedom of others to choose how they want to live, and by supporting their rights to make choices that do not harm us or others, and to live and let live.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes provided a good guideline: “Your right to swing your fist ends where another man’s nose begins.” The other side of that observation is, “We have a right to swing our fist so long as we don’t hit someone else’s nose.”

Finally, if we exercise our freedom responsibly, we acknowledge that an act is not ethical simply because it’s legal, nor is it proper simply because it’s permissible. As Justice Potter Stewart said, “There’s a difference between what we have a right to do and what is right to do.”

An ethical citizen will often choose to do less than the law allows and more than it requires.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comment (2)

When Teresa, a widow with four young children, saw a notice that members of her church would gather to deliver presents and food to a needy family, she took $10 out of her savings jar and bought the ingredients to make three dozen cookies. She got to the church parking lot just in time to join a convoy going to the home that was to receive the congregation’s help.

The route was familiar, and she was stunned when the cars pulled up in front of her house. When the pastor saw her, he said, "We never expected you to join us, Teresa. We know it’s been a great struggle since your husband died, and we all wanted to support you."

Although she was uncomfortable being thought of as the object of charity, Teresa didn’t want to embarrass anyone so she cheerfully said, "Well, at least I can share these cookies with our friends."

This parable teaches us that no one is too poor to help others and that true charity is rooted in love and compassion. Poverty of spirit is worse than economic distress. Teresa’s story reminds us that very few of us give as much as we could and should.

My friend Larry Rosen, president of the YMCA of Metropolitan Los Angeles, introduced me to the concept of "sacrificial giving" -- giving in abundance to a point where one must sacrifice something one desires.

You can start out easy. Take whatever amount you were thinking of giving to charity, then double it. If that’s too much, increase it by 50 percent instead. The idea is to stretch yourself. It will mean a lot to those you help, but it will mean as much to your heart.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 8:18 AM | Permalink | Comment (8)

A few years ago I got a note from Sam Rangel, an eighth-grade teacher in Corona, California. He distributed some of my commentaries on "What I’ve Learned" to his students and asked them to write down what they'd learned over the past year or in their lives. Here's the world of growing wisdom from the 13-year-old perspective:

I've learned that work comes first; fool around later.

I've learned that being popular isn’t everything.

I've learned that being pretty on the inside is better than being pretty on the outside.

I've learned that not everything in life is fair.

I've learned that all people want is someone to listen to them.

I've learned that girls seem to fight with their friends a lot, but almost never with their enemies.

I've learned that it takes a long time to make a friendship and a fraction of a second to destroy it.

I've learned that your imagination is as important as your knowledge.

I've learned that to say no to someone is not wrong.

I've learned that by following others, you aren’t following yourself.

I've learned that the harder it is to do something, the stronger it makes us.

I've learned that I am responsible for me.

I've learned to give everybody a second chance.

I've learned that teenagers will do dumb things.

I've learned that if you respect your elders, they will respect you too.

I've learned that words do hurt people more than sticks and stones.

I've learned that when I come to a fork in the road, ask for help.

I've learned that the easy way is not the best way.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comment (3)

Take a look around. Business, education, politics. If there’s one thing we don’t have enough of, it’s good leaders – men and women who have the vision and the ability to change things for the better.

Former Air Force General William Cohen wrote a fine book called The Stuff of Heroes in which he identified eight laws of leadership. Here are his rules:

1. Maintain absolute integrity.
2. Know your stuff.
3. Declare your expectations.
4. Show uncommon commitment.
5. Expect positive results.
6. Take care of your people.
7. Put duty before self.
8. Get out in front.

His laws embrace important competencies like knowledge, communication skills, commitment, optimism, caring, and a powerful sense of duty. But General Cohen also recognized that the foundation of a successful leader is character, including trustworthiness, honor, and courage.

The best leaders draw on these moral qualities to influence others through inspiration, persuasion, trust, and loyalty. They do the right thing despite the costs and risks and do it not because it will yield approval or advantage, but because it’s the right thing.

In these cynical times, it’s easy to think such leadership is unattainable; yet in every walk of life there are hundreds of men and women – parents, teachers, coaches, civic activists – who fit this mold. What’s more important, every one of us could be among them.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 4:46 PM | Permalink | Comment (2)

On this 4th of July, I hope you will take time to experience pride in and appreciation for the great qualities of our country.

One quality of our democracy is that every citizen is a public official. Thus, the passionate advocacy of political convictions is not only a right, it’s a patriotic obligation.

What worries me, however, is the tendency of many basically good people to be overcome with self-righteous certainty that they’re right and that those who disagree with them are wrong.

Having grown up during the ’60s, I have ugly memories of the brutality and futility of close-minded ideological warfare about the Vietnam War.

The conduct and name-calling from anti-war factions was often ferocious and unfair. They called people who believed the war was justified warmongers, imperialists, or ignorant government stooges. Worse, some went beyond protesting policies; they belittled, condemned, and rejected the military personnel who gave and risked their lives in service to their country.

The other side was no better. Adamant hawks labeled war opponents traitors or cowards. They considered any dissent to be disloyal, even criticism of the atrocious slaughter of innocent civilians in a village called My Lai. They evoked the all-purpose shield of national security to suppress documents (the Pentagon Papers) that discredited government claims about the conduct of the war.

Patriotism shouldn’t take the form of arrogant, chest-pounding, flag-waving claims of superiority or the morally blind chauvinistic claim that we have an inherent right to do whatever we think to be in our national self-interest.

Patriotism doesn’t require us to support whatever national policy our elected officials pursue, but it does require respectful and responsible discourse – on both sides.

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:39 AM | Permalink | Comment (7)

One of my favorite poems is called "The Dash." Written by Linda Ellis shortly after her grandmother’s death, it’s an eloquent invocation to live one’s life thoughtfully.

I read of a man who stood to speak at the funeral of his friend.
He referred to the dates on her tombstone from the beginning to the end.
He noted that first came her date of birth and spoke the following date with tears,
But he said what mattered most of all was the dash between those years.

For that dash represents all the time she spent alive on earth,
And now only those who loved her know what that little line is worth.
For it matters not how much we own -- the cars, the house, the cash --
What matters is how we live and love and how we spend our dash.

So think about this long and hard -- are there things you’d like to change?
For you never know how much time is left that can still be rearranged.
If we could just slow down long enough to consider what’s true and real,
And always try to understand the way other people feel.

And be less quick to anger and show appreciation more,
And love the people in our lives like we’ve never loved before.
If we treat each other with respect and more often wear a smile,
Remembering that this special dash might only last a little while.

So when your eulogy’s been read with your life’s actions to rehash,
Would you be proud of the things they say about how you spent your dash?

This is Michael Josephson reminding you that character counts.

Linda has a website where you can order printed copies of the full poem and read more than a dozen other uplifting verses.

Posted by Josephson Institute Editor at 9:35 AM | Permalink | Comment (2)