Social Justice

Fine dining typically means splurging a little for high-quality meat or fresh seafood. But what if money were truly no object?

Restaurant owners and chefs around the world create original dining experiences for those who want unique experiences. You know, like spending nearly $10,000 on a pizza or $1,000 on an ice cream sundae.

Here are a few of the world’s most expensive meals:

• Masa — New York. Dinner Omakase menu per person: $750 sushi-eating experience.

• SubliMotion —Dubai. Dinner per person: around $2,000. That’s more than the average family will spend for an entire month on food.

• De Daltons – The Netherlands. The Golden Boy Burger: $5,532.79. Chef Robbert Jan de Veen’s “The Golden Boy” is made with 100% Wagyu A5 meat, as well as Beluga caviar, king crab, Spanish Paleta Ibérico, white truffle, and English cheddar.

• Renato Viola — Salerno, Italy. Louis XIII Pizza: $9,184.32. Pizza toppings include: mozzarella di bufala, lobster, and caviar all flown in from all different parts of the world.

• The Fortress Resort and Spa — Sri Lanka. The Fortress Stilt Fisherman Indulgence Dessert: $14,500. The dessert features Italian cassata flavored with Irish cream with a pomegranate and mango compote. The base is adorned with an 80-carat aquamarine stone.

Possible Preaching Angles:

(1) Salvation and The Lord's Supper—They're both offered free of charge (although Jesus paid the price that we could never have paid), and the Lord's Supper is better than anything on this list. (2) Social Justice—While millions of people are malnourished, a few people can afford outrageously expensive, luxurious meals. (3) Simplicity; Provision—God promised to provide daily bread, not daily slice of "Louis XIII" pizza. (4) Hospitality—Hospitality is more about love and openness than about trying to offer a "world's best meal." Encourage people to keep it simple.

49.6 million. According to the Global Slavery Index that's the latest estimate for the number of slaves in the world today. It could be just another number in a blur of facts that fly by our faces in a day, but this nearly 50 million number has a face. It includes women and men, boys and girls who are held in bondage as sex slaves, domestic servants, and child soldiers.

Of course, that is only an estimate since slavery thrives in darkness. But another news item gives this statistic an even more horrifying angle. A British paper shared a story about “Daniel” (not his real name) who was brought into the U.K. for what he had been told was a "life-changing opportunity.” He thought he was going to get a better job. Instead, it was then that he realized there was no job opportunity and he had been brought to the UK to give a kidney to a stranger.

"He was going to literally be cut up like a piece of meat, take what they wanted out of him and then stitch him back up," according to Cristina Huddleston, from the anti-modern slavery group Justice and Care.

Luckily for Daniel, the doctors had become suspicious that he didn't know what was going on and feared he was being coerced. So, they halted the process.

Daniel was not free of his traffickers though. Back in the flat where he was staying, two men came to examine him. It was then he overheard a conversation about sending him back to Nigeria to remove his kidney there.

He fled, and after two nights sleeping rough, he walked into a police station near Heathrow, triggering an investigation that would lead to the UK's first prosecution for human trafficking for organ removal.

Despite international and domestic efforts, about 10 percent of all transplants worldwide are believed to be illegal—approximately 12,000 organs per year. For example, according to the World Health Organization as many as 7,000 kidneys are illegally obtained by traffickers each year around the world. While there is a black market for organs such as hearts, lungs, and livers, kidneys are the most sought-after organs … The process involves a number of people including the recruiter who identifies the victim, the person who arranges their transport, the medical professionals who perform the operation, and the salesman who trades the organ.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed suit against Texas company RealPage, alleging that the company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by enabling property owners to illegally collude, preventing competition in the rental market to artificially inflate their profits. According to reporting from the nonprofit ProPublica, RealPage’s software enables landlords to share confidential data so they can charge similar rates on rental properties.

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter said, “RealPage has built a business out of frustrating the natural forces of vigorous competition. The time has come to stop this illegal conduct.”

Kanter compared the system to drug cartels and went on to say, “We learned that the modern machinery of algorithms and AI can be even more effective than the smoke-filled rooms of the past. You don't need a Ph.D. to know that algorithms can make coordination among competitors easier.”

Officials at the DOJ say the lawsuit is the culmination of over two years of investigation into RealPage. This included analysis of internet documents and communications and also consultation with programmers who could break down how the computer code interacts with the proprietary data.

The lawsuit is part of an ongoing effort from federal, state, and local officials to mitigate the lack of affordable housing in American cities. It’s also part of a broader push to scrutinize similar information-sharing systems that might enable antitrust violations in other industries.

“Training a machine to break the law is still breaking the law,” said Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco.

Possible Preaching Angle:

When people use dishonest means to boost profits, it is not just illegal, it dishonors the Lord, who cares for the poor.

After a two-week battle with a sudden fast-spreading infection, Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, passed away. Dean had recently given a deposition alleging that his firing in 2023 was in retaliation for having disclosed what he called “serious and gross misconduct by senior quality management of the 737 production line.”

The Boeing 737 MAX has a troubled safety record, with high-profile crashes in 2018 and 2019 killing hundreds, and an Alaska Airlines flight in early 2024 that had to make an emergency landing after an explosive decompression due to an insufficiently secured door plug.

According to The Seattle Times, Dean was 45 years old, in relatively good health, and known for a healthy lifestyle. In February, he spoke to NPR about Spirit’s troubling safety practices.

"Now, I'm not saying they don't want you to go out there and inspect a job … but if you make too much trouble, you will get the Josh treatment,” Dean said, about his previous firing. “I think they were sending out a message to anybody else. If you are too loud, we will silence you.”

Dean’s death comes two months after another Boeing whistleblower, John Barnett, was found dead of a potentially self-inflicted gunshot wound. Barnett was also in the process of testifying against Boeing about potential safety lapses in the manufacturing of the Boeing 787, and claims that he was similarly retaliated against for his whistleblowing. Barnett was 63 at the time of his death, and known for a vocal criticism of what he perceived to be Boeing’s declining production standards.

Dean’s attorney Brian Knowles, whose firm also represented Barnett, refused to speculate on whether the two deaths are linked, but insisted that people like Dean and Barnett are important.

Knowles said, “Whistleblowers are needed. They bring to light wrongdoing and corruption in the interests of society. It takes a lot of courage to stand up. It’s a difficult set of circumstances. Our thoughts now are with John’s family and Josh’s family.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Sometimes telling the truth can be costly. But this should never inhibit us from standing for the truth.

In his book Forgive, Tim Keller tells the story of a friend of his who was a PhD student at Yale. Keller’s friend once told him that modern people think about slavery and say, “How could people have ever accepted such a monstrosity?” Keller continues:

My friend said, “That’s not the way historians think. They ask: considering the fact it was universally believed by all societies that we had the right to attack an enslaved, weaker people, and since everybody had always done it, the real historical question is, why did it occur to anybody that it was wrong? Whoever first had that idea?”

My friend then answered his own question, pointing out that the first voices in the fourth, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries who called for the abolition of slavery were all Christians. And the Christian, who called for this justice, believed there was a God of love, who demanded that we love our neighbors—all our neighbors—as ourselves.

Abraham Lincoln biographer Jon Meacham notes, “There was no evident political gain to be had for Lincoln [to be anti-slavery]; quite the opposite. So why did he … state so clearly that slavery was unjust?”

Someone close to Lincoln pointed to the following story:

One morning in … the city [Lincoln] passed a slave auction. A vigorous and comely [young woman] was being sold. She underwent a thorough examination at the hands of the bidders; they pinched her flesh and made her trot up and down the room like a horse, to show how she moved, and in order, as the auctioneer said, that “bidders might satisfy themselves” whether the article they were offering to buy was sound or not.

The whole thing was so revolting that Lincoln moved away from the scene with a deep feeling of “unconquerable hate.” Bidding his companions follow him he said, “By God, boys, let's get away from this.”

Meacham concludes, “That experience formed one element of Lincoln's reaction, if not the main one. ‘The slavery question offered bothered me as far back as 1836 to 1840’, Lincoln said in 1858. ‘I was troubled and grieved over it.’”

Possible Preaching Angle:

In the same way, are we today troubled and grieved by the injustice of the world?

In 1989 [in Los Angeles], Mother Teresa visited some homeless Latino men living in a church-sponsored shelter program. Mother Teresa expressed the hope that people in Los Angeles would find housing, food, and work for these men.

Someone asked if she realized that it was against the law for American citizens to employ illegal aliens or offer them shelter. Mother Teresa replied, "Is it not breaking the law of God to keep them on the streets?"

The Rev. Fred Shuttlesworth, a pastor in Birmingham, Ala., in the 1950s, was called by the historian Andrew Manis “one of the least known but most impactful figures in the civil rights movement.” He was, by his own estimate, arrested in peaceful protests some 30 to 40 times. His house was bombed with his whole family inside one Christmas Eve. His church was subjected to three different bombing attempts

On September 9, 1957, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act and lawyers sought injunctive relief to force Arkansas to integrate Central High in Little Rock. On that very day, Shuttlesworth organized the integration of Phillips High School in Birmingham, driving his own two children to the school to enroll them.

He was met by a white mob that beat him with baseball bats, chains, and brass knuckles. As he was beginning to lose consciousness, Shuttlesworth recounts that “something” said to him: “You can’t die here. Get up. I have a job for you to do.” In the hospital later that day, a reporter asked Shuttlesworth what he was working for in Birmingham. He responded: “For the day when the man who beat me and my family with chains at Phillips High School can sit down with us as a friend.”

In his book Adrift, Scott Galloway details how America is losing its strong middle class:

In 1965, the chiefs of America's largest 350 companies by revenue made 21 times the average compensation of their industries’ workers. In 2020, the CEO-to-worker compensation ratio shot up to 351 times that of their workers. Since 1960, corporate profits have gone up 85 times; employee wages have gone up only 38 times. Between 1979 and 2013, the bottom 99% of Americans saw their wages go up about 18%. The top 1% of Americans saw their wages go up 140%.

The result is that kindergartners with good grades from poor families are less likely to graduate from high school, graduate from college, or earn a higher wage than their affluent peers with bad grades. At 38 colleges, including five of the Ivies, there are more students from the top 1% of the U.S. income scale than from the bottom 60%.

When Bernard Robins saw the three officers eyeing him from their department cruiser, it was a familiar look. He’d been stopped by police multiple times before as a teen and young adult, but previously chalked up those encounters to being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was also familiar because he’d logged plenty of time in a cruiser himself, as a member of the LA Police Department.

So, he conducted himself as he always does in these scenarios – he kept things polite, kept his hands in plain view, and informed the officers that he also wore the badge. None of that mattered to these officers, who still handcuffed Robins, despite no wrongdoing on his part.

Off duty that day, Robins had been spending time in pursuit of his passion, filmmaking. Having just come from a shoot for a film he’d written, Robins was chatting with a lighting tech that he knew. Police eventually detained Robins because they suspected the tech of criminal activity, but failed to release him even after he supplied them with identification confirming his status as an officer.

Robins says that after returning to work, his supervisor and many of his colleagues were generally supportive. Nevertheless, he wondered if his fellow officers would have his back out in the field, particularly after he discovered rumors that he was gang affiliated, a charge he vehemently denies. Robins eventually sued the department, accusing members of a gang unit of racially profiling him.

Robins said the incident shook his faith in policing, causing him to reconsider whether he could still participate in the organization he’d been so excited to join just three years prior. During his mandated sessions with a police psychologist before his return, Robins had been encouraged to just put on the uniform and see how it felt. It was the same unform that he’d previously been proud to wear. Robins said, “All I did was put the uniform on, but it just felt too uncomfortable.” And after that, he told his supervisor that he was done.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Sometimes taking a stand for what is right involves relinquishing power and position. It also means telling the truth, even when it comes at a cost to one's career prospects.

In 2020 Christian leader John Perkins interviewed the lawyer, Bryan Stevenson. Perkins, the son of a sharecropper, was born in poverty in Mississippi. Stevenson was born two years after Perkins’ conversion to Christ, in a poor, black, rural community in Delaware. Stevenson eventually graduated from Harvard law school and founded the Equal Justice initiative. He represents people who have been sentenced to death on flimsy evidence or without proper representation.

Stevenson told Perkins the story of his first visit to death row. As a law student intern, he’d been sent to tell a prisoner that he was not at risk of execution in the coming year. Stevenson felt unprepared. The prisoner had chains around his ankles, wrists, and waist. Stevenson delivered his message. The man expressed profound release. They talked for hours. But then two prison guards burst in.

Angry that the visit had taken so long, the guards reapplied their inmates’ chains. Stevenson pleaded with the officers to stop. He told them it was his fault they overrun their time. But the prisoner told Stevenson not to worry. Then he planted his feet, threw back his head and sang:

I’m pressing on the upward way,

New heights I’m gaining every day;

Still praying as I am onward bound,

Lord, plant my feet on higher ground.

Everybody stopped, Stevenson said, “The guards recovered, and they started pushing this man down the hallway. You could hear the chains clanking, but you could hear this man singing about higher ground. And in that moment God called me. That was the moment I knew I wanted to help condemned people get to higher ground.”

When Disney CEO Bob Chapek was fired and replaced by his predecessor Bob Iger, many of Disney’s most vocal fans rejoiced. One of them is Len Testa, a computer scientist who once did a master’s thesis using math to optimize his ability to see as many Disney theme park rides as possible.

Testa wrote a column in the NY Times about why he felt Chapek was unfit for his previous leadership position. In the column, Testa claimed that Chapek violated the spirit of founder Walt Disney, his penchant for hospitality, and his appreciation of childlike wonder.

In his August 2022 earnings call, Mr. Chapek reported that Disney’s theme park, experiences, and products division had generated $7.4 billion in revenue in the third quarter, up 72 percent from the same time a year prior. He could have acknowledged Disney’s theme park guests for the stunning results.

Instead, a news release suggested that earnings would have been greater but for an “unfavorable attendance mix” at Disneyland. The company was essentially saying that too many annual passholders were visiting from nearby instead of out-of-towners, who stay at Disney hotels and eat at Disney restaurants more often. Some fans responded by creating T-shirts emblazoned with the phrase “Unfavorable attendance mix” and wearing them in the parks as in-jokes to other fans.

Testa says that fans interpret a recent uptick in extra theme park fees and surcharges as a lack of appreciation for generations of fans whose loyalty helped to build Disney into the corporate behemoth it is today. Furthermore, he says that influencers and freelance writers have made a cottage industry out of providing tips for people going through the process of booking a Disney trip because of how byzantine, confusing, and expensive it has become.

Testa ends his piece by suggesting that if Mr. Iger wants to experience the park from the perspective of one of the fans, he should try navigating Disney’s reservation system to book a theme park stay on a middle-class salary. Testa said, “When he’s overwhelmed by the cost and complexity, I know many fans who’d be happy to talk him through it. No charge.”

Tech companies often make public statements in favor of affordable housing in the context of public acts of philanthropy. But the sincerity of these pronouncements can be tested by examining responses from the same executives confronted with actual affordable housing developments in their neighborhoods. And right now, many of them are failing this simple test.

Top executives at Netflix, Apple, Google, Facebook parent-company Meta, and others, have publicly opposed a recent housing development plan in Atherton, California, a wealthy Silicon Valley enclave just north of Stanford University. It’s a trend that housing analysts call NIMBYism, which stands for “Not In My Back Yard.”

Jeremy Levine, of the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County said, “Atherton talks about multifamily housing as if it was a Martian invasion or something.” Atherton, like many wealthy towns its size, is zoned almost exclusively for single-family dwellings. But the meteoric rise in tech-related jobs has put the state of California on an unsustainable housing trajectory. Simply put, there are far too many people with too few affordable places to live.

To ameliorate this issue, the state of California requires cities to submit housing plans that account for the projected growth in their communities. In Atherton, that meant carving out a zoning exception for several multifamily townhouse sites. Almost immediately, many town residents saw this potential development as a threat to their way of life. One resident said that having more than one residence on a single acre of land would “MASSIVELY decrease our home values, the quality of life of ourselves and our neighbors, and IMMENSELY increase the noise pollution and traffic.”

Atherton mayor Rick DeGolia is sympathetic and said, “Everybody who buys into Atherton spent a huge amount of money to get in.” Urban Planner Ralph Robinson was blunter saying, “People are less sympathetic.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

In contrast to this attitude, the family of God is to be open to everyone, and not exclusively reserved for a wealthy few.

The rich talk a good game but often don’t live up to their convictions. Many affluent Americans whose politics are on the liberal left are being exposed as hypocrites in regards to housing, taxation, and education. The New York Times, which in many cases is the flag-bearer for the left, is displaying integrity and courage in criticizing and exposing their own.

Just one example given is the San Francisco area adding 676,000 jobs in the last eight years but only having 176,000 housing units. The City Council attempted to re-zone a certain area to allow for the construction of a 60-unit affordable housing complex. The overwhelmingly liberal residents of Palo Alto voted to repeal the decision, eventually resulting in the construction of a few $5 million single-family homes.

The New York Times lead writer on business and economics, Binyamin Appelbaum, comments:

I think people aren’t living their values. You go to these meetings in these neighborhoods where they’re talking about a new housing project, and it’s always the same song. And it goes like this. “I am very in favor of affordable housing. We need more of it in this community. However, I have some concerns about this project. We have the hearts to do this. But we’re doing it wrong. And we’re dictating harm onto the neighborhoods.”

And then off we go with the concerns. And then nothing ever gets built. This is happening all over California. And the result is that these neighborhoods are so expensive that they keep anyone out who isn’t a part of this small group of superrich residents, many of whom bought their properties decades ago and who spend their time fighting vigorously to keep the value of their real estate assets superhigh.

You can watch the video here.

When Joliet Police sergeant Javier Esqueda received a hand-delivered letter from one of his peers, he knew it was bad news. The letter was from the president of the police supervisor’s union, informing Esqueda of a near-unanimous vote to expel him from their ranks.

The letter read, “The Executive Board finds cause that you engaged in conduct that is detrimental to the orderly operation of the Association. And your conduct is deemed so reprehensible that removal from membership is appropriate.”

What was Esqueda’s conduct that was deemed so reprehensible? He leaked a video to the media of several officers mistreating a man in their custody. In January of 2020, officers were transporting Eric Lurry to their local police station when he appeared to lose consciousness. Officers suspected that immediately prior Lurry had swallowed drugs as an attempt to evade arrest, and therefore could’ve understood Lurry’s loss of consciousness as drug-induced medical distress.

But the officers didn’t transport Lurry to the hospital. Not only that, but they also repeatedly struck Lurry, restricted his airway, and at one point shoved a baton into his mouth. Hours later, Lurry died of a drug overdose. For their actions, the officers all received minor punishment, including a six-day suspension for the officer who intentionally turned off the sound to the recording.

But for leaking the squad car video, Esqueda was charged by prosecutors of four counts of misconduct. Not only was he removed from the police union, but he faces up to 20 years in prison. Esqueda said, “They all wanted me charged, they all want me gone, and by doing this, it’s self-gratification for them.”

After USA TODAY ran a story on Esqueda, the Illinois Attorney General’s office launched a formal investigation, which resulted in Joliet police chief Dawn Malec being demoted.

Possible Preaching Angle:

Christians should always be bold truth tellers, exposing injustice as we walk in the light of truth.

In the spring of 2018, Charles Battle II had no idea that he would become the focal point of his local community’s struggle to reform the way police interact with its citizens. But now he’s as engaged in the struggle as he’s ever been.

Police detained Battle as a suspect for a robbery he had not committed, all because an eyewitness identified him as having been involved minutes prior. However, Battle was not wearing any apparel that matched witness testimony, and the witness at the time was not wearing her glasses. The only thing Battle had in common with the suspect description is that he was young and Black. Nevertheless, he was arrested and kept in police custody. It wasn’t until six months later that the Denver District Attorney’s Office dropped the charges for lack of evidence. His mother said, “He’s been traumatized. He says, ‘Mom, any day I leave I could not come home.’”

The police technique used to identify Charles is informally known as a “showup.” Unlike the traditional technique of having witnesses pick the suspect out of a lineup of several potential suspects (or to pick from a photo array, which uses the same principle), police bring witnesses in person to the area of the crime to identify a potential suspect without being shown any other alternatives.

As a result of her son’s arrest, Sharon Battle collaborated with Together Colorado, a multifaith advocacy group, who spent years advocating for changes in the way law enforcement conducts witness identifications. The resulting bill has gotten bipartisan support in the Colorado legislature, and it prohibits the use of showups except in situations where lineups and photo arrays are not possible, but the potential suspect is detained “within minutes of the commission of the crime and near the location of the crime.”

Rep. Jennifer Bacon, the bill’s sponsor said, “Everyone deserves to have the right person be held accountable for these actions. You shouldn’t just be Black on the street and be thrown into the system because we can’t identify people properly.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

All of us, and especially those of us in positions of leadership, have a responsibility to behave as honorably as possible to promote justice. If our behavior injures or offends others, we have a responsibility to correct those behaviors and make things right with those who were wronged.

The epidemic of call-out culture is very disturbing to Professor Loretta J. Ross. She is a Black feminist who has been doing human rights work for 40 years. Although she does not claim to be a Christian, she does share a valuable lesson. She writes:

Today’s call-out culture is so seductive, I often have to resist the overwhelming temptation to clap back at people on social media who get on my nerves. Call-outs happen when people publicly shame each other online, at the office, in classrooms or anywhere humans have beef with one another. But I believe there are better ways of doing social justice work.

In rural Tennessee in 1992, a group of women whose partners were in the Ku Klux Klan asked me to provide anti-racist training to help keep their children out of the group. All day they called me a “well-spoken colored girl” and inappropriately asked that I sing Negro spirituals.

Instead of reacting, I responded. I couldn’t let my hurt feelings sabotage my agenda. I listened to how they joined the white supremacist movement. I told them how I felt when I was eight and my best friend called me “n---er.” The women and I made progress. I did not receive reports about further outbreaks of racist violence from that area for my remaining years monitoring hate groups.

We can change this culture. Calling-in is simply a call-out done with love. Some corrections can be made privately. Others will necessarily be public, but done with respect. So, take comfort in the fact that you offered a new perspective of information and you did so with love and respect. But the thing that I want to emphasize is that the calling-in practice means you always keep a seat at the table for them if they come back.

Back in 1912, Willa and Charles Bruce were one of the first African-American landowners in Los Angeles County after purchasing a plot of oceanside property and opening one of the only non-racially-segregated resorts in the area.

Despite the grateful patronage of Black visitors, “Bruce’s Beach” eventually became a target of racist attacks from a local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Family historian Duane Shephard said, “They started harassing my family around 1920. They burned a cross. They threw burning mattresses under the porch of one of the buildings.”

By 1924, the city used the process of eminent domain as a pretext to seize the property from the Bruce family and turn it into a public park. L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn said, “These people were terrorized and kicked out of a community where they were trying to live peacefully. Here were some Black lives, and they didn't matter 100 years ago. But I think they matter now.” Hahn made those comments in a news conference announcing the decision from the local city council to return that land to the descendants of Willa and Charles Bruce.

Local resident Malissia Clinton wonders what her community would look like had that injustice not taken place: “This community might be teeming with Black folks if we had not destroyed that family. It changed the trajectory, not only of their lives and their offspring but of this community.”

The county plans to give the property back to the Bruce family descendants, then lease the property from them, in order to keep it accessible to the community while providing income for the family. It also authorized $350,000 to spend on public art commemorating the family.

When asked what the original couple would’ve thought of this gesture, Shepard was emphatic. "Oh, they would have loved it. I'm sure they're proud of us right now for fighting to get that back.”

Possible Preaching Angle:

Even as the righteous pursue justice, let them not lose hope that injustices can be made right again, for with God all things are possible.

When someone stands up for his/her beliefs in the face of adversity, they are called a “moral rebel.” A prominent example is the case of the sexual predator Harvey Weinstein. He seemed too big to fall until actors Ashley Judd and Rose McGowan courageously came forward, risking their careers if unsuccessful. Moral rebels also confront a bully or correct a friend who uses a racist slur.

Secular psychologists say moral rebels have high self-esteem and are confident of their own “judgment, values and ability and thus that they have a social responsibility to share those beliefs.” The Christian outlook says “Exactly!”

The moral rebel isn’t afraid of occasional embarrassment or a lack of social harmony. They are far less concerned about conforming to the crowd. So, when they have to choose between fitting in and doing the right thing, they will probably choose to do what they see as right. The Christian outlook says “Exactly!”

A moral rebel needs to have grown up seeing moral courage in action, from parents but also peers and community leaders. He or she also needs to feel genuine empathy. Spending time with and really getting to know people from different backgrounds helps. White high school students who had more contact with people from different ethnic groups have higher levels of empathy and see people from different minority groups in more positive ways.

Those who have experienced the pain of rejection are less likely to be moral rebels. They need to fit in. For the Christian a close relationship with God and good fellowship mitigates against this.