ONE DIVINE NATION

WITH LIBERTY, JUSTICE, AND COMPASSION FOR ALL

A 21 st Century Vision of the American Dream

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface Introduction Part I: The Heart of the Matter 1 Setting a Course 2 Our State of Union 3 A Call for Compassion 4 A Return from Exile 5 A Delusional World 6 A Hopeful Vision Part II: A Path to Peace 7 A Spiritual Being 8 The Mystic Way 9 The Christian Challenge 10 The Realm of Science 11 The Spirituality of Politics 12 An Enlightened Electorate 13 An American Dream Afterword

Preamble to the U.S. Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all

men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

Preamble to the U.S. Constitution

We the People of the United States, in

Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Preface

REMEMBER THE DAY WELL when I first encountered the subject of Mysticism,

although there was nothing very special about it. It was the spring of 1982, and I was lying on the couch in my small, off-campus apartment where I was living for the second semester of my sophomore year at Duke University. I had just come through the other side of a serious bout with clinical depression over the recent holiday season, triggered by physical and emotional challenges weighing heavily on me, and compounded by the psychological stress of making two crucial life decisions at the time. The first was concerning my enrollment in the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corp (NROTC), and the other concerned my future course of study at Duke. As it turned out, the previous semester I had decided to withdraw from the NROTC program (losing that scholarship money in the process) and to change my major from Electrical Engineering to Religious Studies. As you might imagine, these were not decisions that my parents were eager to embrace, for good reason. After all, we were a middle class family that sometimes struggled to make ends meet, so paying the full cost for a top quality education was not a luxury we could readily afford. Eventually, as they always have, my parents supported my right to make my own personal choices in my life, even though it was not always clear to them where those choices would lead me. I consider myself very fortunate for this deep trust and respect placed in me by my mother and father, and I am deeply grateful for their genuine unconditional love throughout my life. Indeed, I live in gratitude for my parents each day for many reasons and in many ways. Yet, for all their loving support, they could do not prevent several fiery battles I had with depression in my late teens and early twenties. The details of this particular dark period in my life at the age of 19 are not important for now, other than noting that over the Thanksgiving break in 1981, my life spun into a steep downward spiral toward a very despondent mental state, one

12 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n in which I dwelt quite miserably well into the new year. But as the winter break at home with my family came to an end, and after quite a bit of deep reflection on my psychological state of health, I knew that when I returned to Duke, I needed to remove myself from the distractions and temptations of campus life and to recover from the devastating despair caused by the recent disorienting events. As I told my father, I desperately needed time and space alone, so I could regain my mental and emotional balance and focus on personal goals. I thus made the equally controversial decision to move off-campus on my own when I returned for the spring semester, which, of course, required having transportation and rent money. I also had to consider that Dukes housing policy stated once a student moved off-campus, he or she could not return to on-campus dormitories, which certainly had its drawbacks. Fortunately, given my extenuating circumstances, the universitys administration granted me permission to return to campus for my junior year. As such, with the assistance of student loans, my fathers hard work and generosity, the compassion of the university administration, and the patience of some very kindhearted professors, I was able to stay enrolled at Duke and to pursue the studies that were of most interest to me. As it turned out, those few months living on my own proved to be as beneficial as I had hoped, both for how I would direct my areas of study during the remaining two years at Duke, as well as how I have lived my life since then. In fact, this book can directly trace its roots to that period of deep soul-searching in my sophomore year; indeed, to that particular day three decades ago in my lowincome apartment. As was the norm at the time while hanging out on my couch, I was deep in thought grappling with the big questions in life. Who am I, and why am I here? And, Why am I going through this difficult, painful experience in my life? In fact, why is anyone here and why does anyone have to suffer as a human being in this vast and mysterious universe? However, it was not as if I were just talking to myself in my head; rather, these mindful musings, which go back to my early childhood, typically occurred as a one-way conversation with a god that I hoped and believed was listening to what I was asking and saying. Since I had no tangible proof that this god was real, I was never certain. I did have enough spiritually meaningful, or synchronistic, experiences growing up to lead me to put my trust and faith in a greater being who, in some sense of the word, loved me. However, clearly that love did not mean keep safe from suffering, and so ensued the soulful struggle at that age with

P r e f a c e | 13 exactly who or what loved me and everyone else on Earth, and, more so, with precisely what that love entails. At some point during this prayerful meditation on the nature of divine love, I recall starting with the more basic premise that if, indeed, there is only one god and that god created the universe and everything in it, then that god likely has a unique relationship with every human being that has lived, is living, and will live on this planet. If not, all soul searching is likely for naught and we are thus fated with profound ignorance of such a god in any direct, perceptual way. If so, and assuming we can know what that relationship is since we would directly partake in it, spiritual seekers of every culture and religion must have some level of authentic experience with that god, and therefore, must reveal some degree of truth about that god. Therefore, the notion that any one religion is rightand all the other religions are wrongwould have to negate the reality of that personal relationship between Creator and creature for the majority of people not adhering to whatever was chosen to be the One True Religion. This is clearly nonsense, since such assertions reek of nothing less than the reality-warping prejudice of ethnocentricity, which, unfortunately, taints many of our institutional religions today to the detriment of greater world peace and prosperity amongst our peoples. The war, conflict, and strife that has been manifested here on Earth as a result of adherents of one religion proclaiming all the others to be false, or at best, to be less truthful than their own revealed truth, is a common critique of religious convictionand rightly so. But as we shall see, this is not the full story of the history of religions, whose role in human evolution is much more complex and positively influential than that negatively narrow focus suggests. In the face of the wide diversity of religious doctrine, spiritual practices, and moral standards that have evolved over time and have deeply influenced our human conditionfor better and for worse, it was not clear to me how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between one god and many religions. While I did not fully understand the reason for the arrogant stance of many religious institutions and practitioners at that juncture in my life, it was my belief that at its root, it was somehow related to our general ignorance as a species of the true relationship between god, religion, and human spirituality; not because I knew the truth, but because I knew whatever that truth is, it has to make sense in the grand

14 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n scheme of things. Certainly, it needed to be more reasonable than, we know more about god than you, because our holy scripture says so. For as I experienced the trials and tribulations of the world around me in the 1960s and 70s, and learned about American and world history through my formal and informal education, what stood out to me most was this: religious intolerance and self-righteousness are responsible for much of the suffering and strife experienced by so many people around the world and throughout the ages. This is because such attitudes typically result in creating conflict between communities, societies, cultures, and nations, rather than promoting peace and prosperity between them. It also seemed apparent to me that our ignorance of our existential truth not only affects how we treat each other, but also how we treat ourselves. Indeed, our psychological health is greatly determined by our level of self-esteem; that is, the higher we value ourselves, the more likely we are to love ourselves, and vice versa. Furthermore, that sense of self-worth is deeply rooted in our understanding of our relationship with our godif we have oneand with the world in which we live. Given these intuitions and observations, I came to the conclusion that if there was a way to find at least one common bond within our wisdom traditions that pointed to a sense of shared value and respect for ourselves and for each other, then there could be hope for moving humanity towards more peace, harmony, and overall wellbeing, despite the self-serving resistance of most organized religions. The key would be to promote that unifying truth and counter the divisive attitudes that hold claim to religious superiority and divine favoritism. Having reached this point in my reasoning process, I distinctly remember posing a question along these lines to the god whom I believed was listening to me: Okay, so if you created all of us, and you love all of us equally without exception to race, religion, culture, or creed, then where is the common truth that must exist in each of the worlds religions? Please help me to understand who you are, who we are, and what the true nature is of our relationship. If you do, I promise Ill do my part to help others understand the same and maybe I can make a differenceno matter how large or smallin shedding light on our communal bond as children of one god, for the sake of improving the quality of human life here on earth. Idealistic, I know, but ever since I can remember, I have held an authentic sense of love and duty for my god, so such prayerful conversations have always been central to my spiritual life. So, again, there was nothing very special

P r e f a c e | 15 about this particular meditation on that spring afternoon in Durham, North Carolina. That day, however, just so happened to be during that time of year when we were to select our courses for the upcoming fall semester. After my first semester at Duke, my Electrical Engineering class schedule consisted of three required classes and one elective. It was during the second semester of my first year that I used that elective to enroll in a course called The Historical Jesus. This class had an unexpected, yet powerful impact on my approach to religionparticularly my own Catholicism, primarily because it exposed me to a world of critical thinking about Jesus, the New Testament, and the scholarship of Biblical Criticism, in general. Enthused with the new landscape of religious study that this course revealed, I decided to use all my electives to minor in Religion when I started my sophomore year. Since, however, I had decided to abandon the School of Engineering for the School of Liberal Arts that spring, I was now filling my schedule with a wide range of subjects such as anthropology, psychology, philosophy, biology, and history, as I worked toward my degree in Religious Studies. And, boy was I happy about that; in contrast to the smothering boredom and disinterest in my math, physics, and engineering classes over my first three semesters, and the poor grades that reflected that mental desolation, my classes was now interesting and inspiring and, not surprisingly, my academic performance greatly improved. I opened the course catalog for the fall of 1982 and started perusing the list of religion classes. I was spending my sophomore year studying the Old and New Testaments, and was looking to move beyond Christianity to a comparative perspective of the worlds religions. As I reviewed the courses offered, I eventually came across one that caught me off guard and seemed a bit out of place: Mysticism, taught by Professor David Bradley. I do not recall the details of the course description, but I do remember that it was completely different from what I expected it would be. The first thoughts that came to mind when I saw the class title were along the lines of the occult; that is, I imagined a course on magical spirits and faeries and things of that nature. The syllabus, however, was clearly not about that. Instead, it described a class that explored the great mystics of human history and the worlds religions, and the experiences and teachings, which they shared along their spiritual journeys. Okay, I thought to myself. There may be something to this that will

16 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n help me understand all these questions Im struggling with today. So I added the class to my list of choices and thought little more about it until the following semester, when it opened doors for my own spiritual exploration that I had never imagined nor knew existed, but through which I was eager to pass. It was through this course that I was exposed to such books and authors as The Perennial Philosophy: An Interpretation of the Great Mystics, East and West by Aldous Huxley, The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James, Mysticism: Sacred and Profane by R.C. Zaehner, and the classic work Mysticism by Evelyn Underwood. More so, the class introduced me to the mystics themselves, who counted amongst them a diverse community of poets, artists, philosophers, theologians, saints, gurus, scientists, and many other spiritual journeyers throughout the past several thousand years across a wide variety of cultures and religions. I delighted in reading what these men and women had to say about their personal lives and direct spiritual experiences with what in some form or fashion they considered Ultimate Reality, or the Ground of our Being, to use two theologically neutral terms. I discovered in the experiences and visions of these spiritually awakened humans the essential truth of our relationship with our god, as well as the nature of that god and our own being. In short, in their mystical revelations I caught a glimpse of truth about god, religion, and humanity that actually made some sense to me then, but even more so to me today, after another thirty years of personal study, prayer, reflection, and, most importantly, spiritual practice. This insight, however, has not been one that I have had to learn to accept, but rather one that I have simply striven to realize in my daily living. For as surely as I have failed to live my whole life by the high moral standard it dictates, I have always intuited and trusted it to be true. That truth in its most basic form is this: there is an underlying unity of the entire universeand everything and everyone within itthat can fairly, though inadequately, labeled as divine. As such, all human action and behavior whether by an individual or by a groupshould recognize this fact of nature and this inherent value of humanity, and therefore extend ones moral concern to all of ones fellow human beings. This universal morality entails an attitude of trust and respect for other people followed by acts of love and compassion, not one of fear and hatred that precedes violence and war. More so, adopting such a moral stance requires us to disregard anything that may make the other person or group appear different from us in our true nature. Certainly a challenge for everyday interactions

P r e f a c e | 17 with the people in our lives, let alone when it comes to those who have proclaimed themselves our enemy and who have real intentions to do us harm. We must have, therefore, the strength and courage to look past the natural veil of delusion that envelops our human consciousness thanks to our brains imposition of separation on everything we experience. While at times it is merely a struggle, most of the time it is very hard or near impossible to pierce the veil and directly perceive the innate unity that binds us together; it takes significant mental effort and a wide-open heart to achieve this state of mind. In fact, this is precisely the goal of most spiritual practices that strive to cultivate and manifest authentic human compassion, especially through such consciousness-expanding techniques as meditation and contemplation: tame the mind of its delusional activities and open the heart to the experience of intimate union with All That Is. After awakening to this core insight into our human nature, the moral imperative for universal compassion, and the intended purpose of authentic spiritual practice, as well as many other truths and observations about our world that are shared amongst our various mystical traditions, I set off on a lifelong journey grounded in this mystic worldview that has gotten me to where I am today. I started by completing my studies at Duke in 1984, earning an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies. Later that year, while teaching Religion in a small, impoverished Catholic school on the rural outskirts of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, I took the Graduate Record Examinations (GRE) and applied to Louisiana State University, whose faculty were eager to grant me a scholarship and Teaching Assistant position in their freshman honors program. I accepted their offer and spent three semesters doing graduate work at LSU, first towards a Masters of the Humanities degree, which was a program that allowed me to concentrate my studies on the phenomenon of religion, then later in the field of Developmental Psychology. Between my studies at Duke and LSU, I ended up taking courses on such subjects as History of Religion, Philosophy of Religion, Anthropology of Religion, Psychology of Religion, Sociology of Religion, World Scriptures, Mysticism, and Adult and Child Developmental Psychology. Through these intellectual examinations of religion and developmental psychology, I gained an eclectic understanding of both. In fact, had I stayed on the academic path, I might have ended up doing my post-graduate work with Harvard developmental psychologist Robert Kegan, author of the then recently published book The Evolving Self (1982),

18 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n which was what my major professor at LSU was proposing I do given my area of interest: the development of human spirituality. I was once again experiencing, however, quite a bit of spiritual angst during those years, characterized by a few more battles with depression and, for the first time, with suicidal tendencies. The process of deconstructing the religious and cultural influences on ones worldview, and attempting to rebuild a more awakened sense of self, can take its toll on ones mental and emotional health, as many humans have attested to over the ages. I was certainly no different. So I reached a point where intuitively I knew I needed to move beyond the intellectual search for spiritual truth, and to see if I could discover it through an ordinary life beyond the insulating walls of academia. So I did. I withdrew from graduate school to start 1987 and entered the real world. Ive since proceeded down a long and winding career path in retail operations and Internet technology to where I am today: a Web development professional working for a large grocery retailer in the southeast U.S. I earn a modest wage, have a home with my wife about two miles from the beautiful Gulf of Mexico beaches, and live a quiet and somewhat secluded life. My battles with clinical depression have long been over, as are many of the other psychological and emotional challenges of my early life. But what still is with me is the deep desire to understand everything I can about God and humanity, especially in relation to the realities of living as a free citizen in these awesome, but deeply troubled, United States of America. As such, I have continued to stay in a lifelong mode of learning about a wide variety of subjects, such a religion, spirituality, psychology, anthropology, sociology, cosmology, neuroscience, quantum physics, politics, economics, and historynot to mention general human-interest stories that illuminate the many achievements and failures of our human nature. Granted, reading and listening to books, and watching news, documentaries, and movies, do not make one an expert in the field of human spirituality, let alone in philosophy, theology, science, or metaphysics. To be clear, I make no claim to any objective or established authority to substantiate my qualifications to write on this subject matter. To the contrary, I openly acknowledge that I am simply an American sharing my view of the world we live in based on what makes sense to me. Thats the best I can do from where I stand today. My hope is simply that if enough of it makes sense to you, then maybe we can work together toward one simple goal: inspiring more compassion in our world, starting at home amongst our own people, and extending beyond our

P r e f a c e | 19 borders to our neighboring nations with whom we share this fragile planet. So, in contrast to the arrogant and antagonistic tone of many authors writing on religion, science, and politics, this book intends to be a humble exploration of what it means to be a human being living on our miraculous planet at the start of a new millennium. For it is from that perspective that it offers a vision of our human nature and spiritual development that has real, tangible implications for how we choose to live as individuals, as well as how we choose to govern ourselves as a democratic society. Given that I consider each reader a brother or sister of our extended human family, and that my overt goal here is simply to help make the world a better place for all of us, it is important that we do not let the details of the vision presented in the following pages distract us from the end goal of agreeing on ways to be more compassionate humans and societies. The bottom line is that I really could care less what ones reasoning is for accepting an altruistic morality; theres too much pain and suffering in the world to waste precious time and energy on why we are motivated to love our neighborswe just need to do it more often and with greater impact. As such, even those who adamantly disagree with the vision of human divinity shared within are welcome to contribute to the open and respectful dialogue about human spirituality and compassion that this book encourages amongst my fellow citizens. I am perfectly comfortable working with any atheist or Buddhist monk that dismisses the notion of a god, or any Christian apologist that denies our divine potential, but who is sincerely committed to effectively reducing the suffering of our fellow human beings. In the end, even with an open acknowledgement of a god, it is more likely that religious believers will cast me as a heretic and infidel than nonbelievers will condemn me for being an ignorant man of blind faith. For those readers looking for some ultimate philosophical argument or irrefutable scientific evidence to support the case for accepting the premise of our human divinity and the moral lifestyle it compels us to embrace, at least some degree of disappointment lay ahead. This book does not attempt to prove some reality called a god or God who dictates all moral behavior; such prooffor or againstsimply does not exist. To the contrary, while it intends to be a reasonably sound illustration of a particular way of viewing the world in which we live, it also appeals to the full gamut of human wisdom and not the single-mindedness of rational thought. For strict materialists (matter is the only reality), this may prove

20 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n to be quite challenging. As author and playwright, Philip Slater, noted in a blog entry regarding the attacks on new atheist author Sam Harris by fellow materialists for his open acknowledgement of authentic spiritual experiences, People hate to have their worldview challenged. Materialists are just as guilty of this as fundamentalists. To discredit the personal experiences of millions simply because they contradict an ideology is to mire us in the traditions of the past and retard cultural evolution. Likewise, for those of religious faith, there is no promise that the mystic vision offered in the following pages will be comfortable or easy to accept. Depending on ones biological age, theological leanings, philosophical perspective, scriptural interpretation, personal devotion, and a host of other influencing factors on the flexibility of ones religious beliefs, it may prove difficult to align the spiritual vision presented with ones own worldview. For fundamentalist Christians, this is likely to be an impossible task, for it will require letting go of literal interpretations of an inerrant Bible. For Catholics, the challenge will be to shift from seeing the Holy Mother Church as an indispensable intermediary for salvation through its creeds and sacraments to simply being a humble servant to all humanity. For the elderly of any faith, the challenge may be to dismantle unhealthy lifelong beliefs that tend to become more unyielding and indestructible as the years go by, making flexibility of the mind and heart difficult to achieve. Naturally, there are similar challenges for the Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and other religious adherents alike. On the other hand, for those readers in our two most recent generations known as Gen X (1964-1979) and Gen Y, a.k.a., Millennials (1980-1999), the mystic vision may strike a chord with their more open and tolerant sensibilities. For it is the youth and young adults of our nation, especially the Millennials who are exploring the world around them in new and non-traditional ways, who are most likely to have the flexibility, desire, and drive to embrace this new vision of the American Dream, andmost important of allto make a difference with it. Given the cultural influences which have shaped the hearts and minds of these age groupsfrom the worldwide reach of the Internet to the deep social awakening of 9/11 to the increased acceptance of interracial relations and alternative lifestyles these young men and women are in a very real sense primed by the failure of our prevailing religious and scientific visions to provide authentic meaning, and so are ready to welcome the powerful implications of the true nature of our humanity. If even the slightest ripple of optimism can make its way through their ranks, it is

P r e f a c e | 21 conceivable that a strong wave of spiritual awakening could arise within our land and lead us towards a more compassionate way of American life. Then there are those readers who are my fellow Baby Boomers (1946-1963), a generation that is likewise well primed for a major shift in consciousness. Although we are often characterized in some sense by many social scientists and scholars as spiritual hypocrites who hold universal, pluralistic ideals (the counterculture sixties) for selfish reasons (the Me generation)termed boomeritis by American philosopher Ken Wilber, if we successfully expand our current circle of concern to embrace the virtue of universal compassion, we may yet mature to the highest levels of social consciousness. Such an awakening would be, as Wilber puts it, a great and historic transformation, one that would have a profound effect on society as we know it, to which he adds, That is not a grandiose boomeritis claim; it is backed by substantiated evidence, particularly from social and psychological developmental studies. More so, our generation is about to enter the age when we need to play the role of the wise elders to our communities in all aspects of life, public and private alike. We must embody the wisdom of our human divinity for our children, our grandchildren, and our entire future family of human beings. We must revitalize our passage into our mature retirement years with a commitment to change the world for the better, only this time with authentic compassion, and not the rather childish and nave ways of the sixties and seventies. With our children raised and our careers winding down, were being beckoned to return to the shared dreams of our youthdreams of a better America for our families and for the world around us. Yes, its time for us to pull our peace signs out of the attic and once again call on our country to make love, not war; only we need to do so with the grace, intelligence, confidence, humility, wit, and integrity that are befitting the spiritually wise and that deserve the respect and cooperation of our youth. As for most of the rest of the current reader populationthat would be the Post-war generation (1928-1945)given many decades of real-life experience, there is likely either an existing alignment with this worldview by now or not; and if not, it is unlikely that this book will change ones belief or value systems in any significant way, or at least not in a way that would be comfortable for the reader. But as recent scientific studies are now suggesting, the human brain has great powers of renewal, so with an open mind and heart, anything is possible. To those already aligned with the mystic vision, regardless of the generation to which one

22 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n belongs, I offer my sincere appreciation for being an authentic beacon of hope and a healing ray of light in our world. You, indeed, are the Light of the World. Finally, just to reiterate the humble motivation behind this book, there are a few more things to reveal about myself, starting with the fact that I am not in any way whatsoever a man of religion; I am indeed irreligious. I am not devoted to any dogma or article of faith, I do not practice any act of righteous ritual, and I do not belong to any religious institution or community. As such, I do not use any form of scripture or divine revelation through others to sanction my views on the existence of a god, the proclamation of a sacred universe, or the moral imperative for universal compassion. In this light, it should be evident that there is no motivation here for founding any new religion or spiritual movement. There is also no intent of promoting myself for my own gain or personal advancement, since, again, there is no affiliation or allegiance to any academic, scientific, religious, or political institution or its declaration of truth; nor am I endorsing any particular for-profit business interest. In many ways, I am just your average Joe living freely and simply for my god, my country, my family, and myself, without shackles to any agenda other than to be true to myself and to my personal sense of purpose and duty. In addition to the distance held from any particular institution, there is also no allegiance or devotion to any one human or spiritual being, other than my god. There is, on the other hand, a visionary alignment with many of our great gurus, sages, saints, and masters of various traditions, each held dearly in my heart as fellow brothers and sisters in our divine human family. However, the absence of conforming to any religious community or spiritual leader has not been for a lack of trying. For example, raised in a Catholic family, and having discovered the Catholic mystics in my junior year at college, I spent a few weeks in the summer of 1983 at St. Anselms monastery in Washington, D.C., getting a feel for the monastic life. In 1994, during a short period of spiritual rejuvenation, I turned my life upside down exploring a ministry through the Unity School of Christianity, an American New Thought church that openly preaches a form of Christian mysticism. Moreover, in 1995, I enrolled in the New Seminary interfaith ministry correspondence program operating out of New York City, while living in Raleigh, North Carolina. But in all three cases, as well as through other attempts to connect with spiritual communities or leaders, I encountered a path of substantial resistance and struggle, which usually served as the real lesson on my personal journeyone

P r e f a c e | 23 which pointed to trusting my own inner knowing and not to cubbyhole myself into the vision of another person or group. There is also, as noted, no intention in the following pages to debate pointby-point the plethora of dogmatic philosophical, theological, and scientific theories and beliefs held by anyone on either side of the proverbial fence between pro-god and anti-god supporters. Those debates would be appropriate in the right format and setting, but this is not it. To the contrary, the intent here is to move past the divisive banter amongst these two groups and concentrate on sharing a reasonable and practical vision of the human condition; indeed, a pragmatic worldview with hopeful implications for our country and our planet by inspiring more love and compassion in our world, not one that answers every existential question before us. Admittedly, it is not meant to be the vision of human existence for all times, just the one that makes the most sense to me from the perspective we have living where and when we do on this seemingly obscure and inconsequential planet of ours. While there are bound to be fair criticisms, I am not aware of any that would inconclusively invalidate the core message that is at the heart of the spiritual vision presented. Besides, the subject matter that is covered in this book is simply too large and too complex to even pretend to do a thorough analysis of each point of debate in a way that would do it justice, let alone be of interest to the intended audience. The real thorn in my side regarding my motivation to write this book is the fact that I have never had the type of profound mystical experience upon which many mystics stake their authority to speak. Not for the lack of searching for one for quite some time after learning of their reported existence, mind you. But as time passed, I eventually accepted the fact that I may never have one, and therefore, might never possess the certainty that I would prefer to have on these matters. So I have let that desire goknowing that if it is meant to be, it will happen in the right moment by grace alone. I have thus simply put my trust in the many synchronistic experiences in my life that continuously confirm my interconnectedness with all that is around me, as well as in my own, personal, inner sense of existential and moral truth. This direct way of knowing my relationship to my god and what that means for how I live my life has always been very accessible to me, usually first in the form of intuition, and eventually through reason, emotion, and/or other cognitive means. For example, through all my studies in comparative religion, mysticism,

24 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n and human spirituality, I have always found myself recognizing common insights in the works and lives of the worlds visionaries, as opposed to learning the truth from them. This is not to say that I havent learned new scientific facts, historical information, or cultural perspectivesI certainly did and still do; but rather, I never said, Hmm, I never knew that spiritual truth. It sure makes sense. I guess Ill start holding it to be true. On the contrary, it has been more along the lines of Yes that makes sense given what I have always intuited, felt, and/or have reasoned. Truly, I have always followed my intuitive heart, and so I am very comfortable listening to this intimate source of spiritual wisdom. Beyond this trust in my direct line to the divine, if you willone I believe we all have by naturethere are a few other reasons for being comfortable speaking without any official backing, not the least of which is that as a human being, I am very familiar with all the varieties of experience one might expect over a fifty-year life span. I know all too well the pain, pleasure, drama, contentment, despair and enjoyment that life has to offer. Fortunately, as human history attests, it is precisely through the trials, tribulations, successes, and achievements of human existence that our wisest and most revered spiritual leaders come to their understanding of what matters most while living in this world. As 13th century Dominican theologian, mystic, prophet, and poet Meister Eckhart phrased it, One person who has mastered life is better than a thousand persons who have mastered only the contents of books. In addition, as a human being living in America at the turn of the 21st century, I certainly know our American culture and heritage, having been educated through intimate experiences with its faults, foibles, and freedoms, as well as informal study of our current and past history. Hence, it is my essential humanity that matters here, for it is in my human experience that the vision conveyed throughout these pages is deeply rooted; one that grows not solely in or for me, but in many, many others and for each member of our human family. So, while this is indeed a very personal book seasoned with insights and lessons from my five decades of being human in America, it is most definitely not all about me. It is, as we have seen, about usboth you and me and the entire species of animal that we call Homo sapiens. Finally, for the sake of full disclosure, there is one motivation behind publishing this book and in establishing a petition to modify our Pledge of Allegiance: that ever present concern of modern lifemoney. That intent is primarily to raise funds for a non-profit organization dedicated to promoting the

P r e f a c e | 25 mystic vision of a sacred cosmos and the implications of this divine birthright for human governance. In its most basic analysis, what ails us is spiritual ignorance; thus, what we need to heal our current personal and social maladies is increased spiritual awareness through effective spiritual education. To be clear, were not talking about the kind of learning that serves any particular religious worldview or authoritarian agenda, but open-minded and eclectic learning that provides students with the tools and resources to study and appreciate our basic spiritual and religious nature. Hence, the practical goal is to support the funding of educational programs focused on religious studies and human development in our public and private schools, alikefrom early middle school all the way though to our collegiate levels. I provide more information about this NPO in the Afterword. I also present a more in-depth review of my own spiritual journey relevant to this book in the final chapter. In short, my heartfelt dream is to find ways to deliver the core message within through whatever creative avenues possible (film being of particular interest to me), and in cooperation with American artists, producers, musicians, politicians, lawyers, doctors, businessmen, educators, students, scientists, parents, religious leaders, spiritual practitioners, and others of like spirit, effectively push our culture over a key tipping point towards an unprecedented spiritual awakening. No small task for sure, and certainly one that may well be stacked against our favor; but one, I sincerely believe, that is not beyond the realm of possibilities within the infinitely creatively universe which we just so happen to have at our disposal. I hope you find it in your heart and mind to join all of us who motivated by the divine inspiration of brotherly love and universal compassion. Of course, such hope and optimism is tempered with a deep sense of humility, for I am well aware that what I have to say is nothing new or radically different from what many others of much greater rational intellect and spiritual awareness have already said and done. In the end, whether one more person commits to realizing the moral ideal of universal compassion after reading this book, or one million, I trust it will have served its purpose.

Joseph Daniel Catanese Bradenton, Florida

Introduction

IT WAS 9:59 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, in the Gulf Coast town of Bradenton,
Florida, and a small group of coworkers and I were standing outside our office building grappling with the images we had just witnessed while huddled around the TV in our modest break room. Ironically, it was a late summer morning, which I vividly recall as much for its deep blue skies and fresh sense of Earths splendor, as for the dark memories of death and devastation reeked upon our country that day. As we solemnly mulled over the shocking events unfolding across our nation, we were, of course, unaware that at that moment there was a male passenger on United Flight 93 locked in his planes toilet, frantically yelling to the 911 operator on the other end of his call: Were being hijacked! Were being hijacked! Nor did we know that the south tower of the World Trade Center was collapsing to the ground, adding hundreds of human lives to the number of innocent and heroic victims massacred in this horrific crime against humanity, committed front and center on American soil. And, while we did know George W. Bush had been at an elementary school in neighboring Sarasota to start the day, we certainly were not aware that the president was just taking off in Air Force One from Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, about 10 miles due south of our office. So as I stood facing south with my eyes scanning the horizon, half listening to the conversation around me and half pondering how such a tragedy could occur on such a glorious day, it was quite surprising to see an airplane flying low to the ground, tracking from the southeast on a slow turn to the west. That surprise turned to surreal astonishment when I recognized the markings on the plane as being those for Air Force One. Immediately, my mind went to President Bush sitting on that plane, processing these events like the rest of us, only unlike

30 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n us, with the knowledge and power to influence how all of this was going to play out in response to those who were attacking us that morning. I wish I could say it was an inspiring moment, one where I felt a strong sense of trust and faith in the man who was about to be thrust into a leadership role rarely seen before on the face of this Earth. I wish I could say that I knew with little doubt that the country was in good hands and that all would be fine with W at the helm of our ship as we sailed into an unimagined future facing unfamiliar threats to our collective American Dream. However, the truth is that I felt exactly the opposite; in that moment, I clearly remember a deep sense of dread, not hope. I felt an unwelcomed foreboding of the forthcoming fiasco George W. Bush was to unleash at home and abroad in his attempt to get the Evil Doers, who would soon be wanted dead or alive in the impending War on Terror. Sadly, in the dozen years since, and in the decades of my life prior to September 11, there have always been troubling events occurring within our borders, and all around the world that have given rise to this same sense of dread about our country, and our species, as a whole. This is also true of many institutional injustices that plague our planet on a daily basis, particularly as manifested in the form of insufferable poverty, disease, and addiction. For most Americans, it is easy call to mind specific examples of such tragic realities as demoralizing political assassinations, disheartening mass killings with high powered weapons, deadly gun violence on our urban streets and suburban doorsteps, incomprehensible domestic abuse that victimizes spouses, children, and relatives alike, unacceptable living and working standards and lack of real economic opportunity, rampant corruption and greed within and between the public and private sectors, and many, many other destructive and disturbing vulgarities of human life. In fact, one only has to peruse the headlines of the day to see a current case in point for each. In the wake of such historical tragedies, especially of the magnitude of 9/11, and in the midst of so many dehumanizing realities that people all around the globe face each day, it is often difficult to find hope for our future. It is also challenging to put our faith in our fellow man or woman to save our country, let alone our species, knowing so well the depths of evil into which humanity can sink. Furthermore, for many Americans, since the recent rise of the right-wing media outlets, and the growing barrage of many other forms of authoritarian propaganda, those dedicated to true democratic principleswhich include reasonable debate, honest compromise, and a commitment to verifiable facts, not

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 31 ideologyare highly discouraged by the power and money that now holds our political system hostage to extreme, fear-driven, and hyperbolic rhetoric and political gamesmanship. Such partisan influence has embroiled our country in some of the ugliest and most brutal battles amongst our citizenry in our prevailing culture war between the authoritarian right, and everyone else not counted as one of them, especially the liberals and atheists who threaten their fundamental source of authority and sense of identity. Unfortunately, there is a similar hijacking of our political system by the concentrated power of corporations, and its tendency to serve the invisible hand of greed that is infamous for destabilizing our markets and causing real suffering for the middle and lower classes that bear the burden of our economic failures. For these me-first Americans, the perceived threat is to their sense of entitlement over their wealth, quite often gained by playing in a game where the rules and regulations are stacked in their favor. Contrary to the notion that all wealthy individuals earn their right to keep their money, the fact is that the playing field is uneven from the get-go as it is favored to redistribute wealth steadfastly and subtlety from the poor to the rich. Money is pumped into the system by the Federal Reserve, andassuming the banks are willing to lend it to those who need itit flows out into the economy, and then up the ladder to the wealthy. That is the reality of our current capitalist economy, but it need not stay that way forever. We can level the playing field and distribute our wealth equitably for those who need it the most. Likewise, we can hold at bay the authoritarian forces that are fighting a war against their own self-defined enemy within, and that are actively trying to rig their playing field in their favor, thus undermining our most sacred democratic principles, if we are unwilling to submit to heartless political tactics backed by a dictatorial agenda. Even more optimistically, the seemingly endless stream of personal and collective tragedies and grave injustices painfully endured by our compatriots in the United States, as well as our human family living beyond our borders, can be reduced and minimized by a culture willing to fully embrace a moral code grounded in the indivisible unity of our people and our species, and focused on promoting the truly universal values of liberty, justice, and compassion. With sincere humility, this book presents a vision of humanity thatif shared by a critical mass of wise, goodhearted, and influential peoplecould move us in these

32 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n more positive directions as a country and as a species. And in such movement, we as individualsand as We the Peoplemight just find a reason for hope.

T HE M ANY V ISIONS OF G OD
What follows, then, is quite simply one Americans take on the current state of our union and the prevailing violence, oppression, injustice, and internal strife that seriously threatens the welfare of our people. While the general scope of concern encompasses the roles of science and religion in American politicsparticularly their impact on the wellbeing of our citizens and our nationa key focal point is on distinguishing two very different ways of envisioning God. On the one hand, there is the well-known revealed God of our religious myths; on the other, is the culturally obscure, yet directly perceived God of our mystical traditions. In the following chapters, we will refer to these fundamentally dissimilar views of God as the mythic god and the mystic god, respectively. In contrast to these god-affirming worldviews, there is also the atheistic view that claims there is no god, as well as the agnostic view that holds it is not possible to know either way if there is a god or not. While these more cynical worldviews towards god are also a topic of concern throughout the book, the distinction between them and the allied pro-god perspectives is fairly well-defined. For example, if we were to take a poll of people of every culture and religious tradition on the existence of God, we could easily account for these worldviews with three simple choices: Yes, No, and Undecided. However, within the population of god supporters, the mythic and mystic theologies do not have that same clear-cut distinction between them, especially not in modern-day America. This is not because they are not at odds with each other in some very critical waysas noted above, they certainly are; but more so, because the mythic meme permeates our Christian-American culture so widely, deeply, and stubbornly that a significant majority of our citizenry remains intellectually and experientially ignorant of the mystic meme. The reasons for this current state of affairs are certainly complex, but one of the most influential has been the rise of science and its challenge to religious authority prior to, and since, the founding of America, which resulted in much oppression of the mystic meme by both sides of the conflict. Another critical factor has been the shift of conservative American Protestant thought and worship away from Biblical literacy and moral reasoning in the 17th century toward Biblical illiteracy and ecstatic experience in the 19th and 20th centuries, primarily in

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 33 response to the establishment of our secular government and education system, as well as the liberalization of our civil rights and social values. Well explore these contributing factors more closely in later chapters, so for now, lets stick with why clarifying the dissimilarities between the two is of such importance, which is this: just as the two words used for each (mystic and mythic) are very similar in spelling, yet completely different in meaning thanks to the simple alteration of one letter (h/s) and one position (before and after t), so are the values, morals, and behaviors often radically different between those people committed to each worldview thanks to some very subtle shifts in a few core beliefs regarding who and/or what god is, as well as the nature of our relationship to that god. Furthermore, the clashing of these values, morals, and behaviors, as we shall see, is at the heart of much of the discord and distrust in our political system and in each other as Americans. This, of course, is true also with the atheist and agnostic in the mix. But, given that manyif not mostAmericans are currently of the mythic mindset, a significant shift in our culture towards the mystic mindset could potentially have a dramatic impact on the way we govern ourselves as a nation, as well as the way we interact with each other as humans and compatriots. While we can say the same for an equally substantial cultural swing to atheism and/or agnosticism, the likelihood of such a major paradigm shift along those lines is much less likely given the deeply religious character of our people. Hence the motivation and intent to popularize the mystic view of god through this book: because doing so just may break us free of the current cultural bondage to the prevailing Christian mythic worldview, which fundamentally devaluesindeed desecratesour very human nature. In its most basic form, the common view of reality shared by many mystics around the globe, with which I feel the most spiritual affinity, holds that the essence of what we are and what God is are one and the same thing; or more accurately, the same no-thing, or no-thingness. That is, there is a reality or being at the core of thingness that gives rise to thingness but is not contained within thingness. That being beyond thingness is what we consider God as Ultimate Reality, but that reality is the same Being at the core of thingness, and hence, is the essence of all creation, including you and me. Our nature, therefore, is Godnature; in other words, we are by nature divine beings, at least in potential, if not in actuality. In theological terms, this understanding of God is called panentheism,

34 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n which means God is both immanent (present in all things) and transcendent (beyond all things). Immanent also connotes the converse idea that all things are in God, as well as the notion that it is in God that all things have their being. [Note: pan = all, en = in, and theism = god; hence, panentheism translates to all in god.] Given this nature, God can be understood as personal as opposed to impersonal in so much as we have an authentic human relationship with our own divine essence, which is one whereby we are deeply loved, cherished, and cared for in a very intimate and direct way through Gods presence in our being. God is personal, as well, in so much as when humans love unconditionally, God loves through us; hence, in some sense, Divine Love incarnates in the world through human personality. However, neither of these concepts of a personal god embraces the notion of an anthropomorphic god that has a human personality, as if God were a Supreme Being that thinks, feels, and behaves like we do, including taking action based on such emotions as jealousy, anger, pride, and appeasement. Furthermore, although personal in the ways noted, by being transcendent, a panentheistic God is also in some sense impersonal or transpersonal; that is, Gods true nature is also much more than personal and beyond any limitations, that such a definition might impose. Many mystics, however, propose a pantheistic worldview, which sees God and thingness as being the essentially same thing. That is, God is not transcendent in any relevant way, only immanent (all is god). In general, pantheists tend to see God as less personal than impersonal in nature; however, there is some wiggle room in this view. Except for pure monism, which declares with atheistic overtones that there is simply nothing but thingness, and Ultimate Reality is only thingness and nothing more (hence, Ultimate Reality is fully impersonal and really not in any sense a god), very often the distinction between a worldview that is pantheistic and one that is panentheistic is very vague and difficult to define. The extent to which God is constrained by thingness versus having some nature that is beyond thingness tends to vary amongst the philosophies and theologies expounded by some of our greatest thinkers and spiritual seekers throughout history. Still, at their core, those who hold one view or the other regarding the degree of transcendence of God share the critical notion of an underlying oneness and unity as the fundamental relationship between all things, and thus between God, the universe, and all living creatures, including you and me.

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 35 Mystics are also generally united in their claim that we can consciously know our divine nature and intimate relationship with Ultimate Reality through direct experience and immediate perception as human beings, sometimes after being cultivated through spiritual practices, proper faith, right living, deep devotion, and/or in many casessome might say in all casespurely through divine grace. More so, most mystics humbly testify to the struggle of trying to process these ineffable experiences through the human mind and into a particular human language or artistic expression for communicating its truth and wisdom to others. For any word, concept, or art used to portray that which is infinite and beyond all thingness, no matter how poetic or nuanced, imposes a false boundary onto the experience and thus conveys a meaning that is in some way less than the truth of the moment. Thus, many mystics preach an apophatic approachor the path of via negativa as it is known in Western spiritualitiesto knowing and discussing Gods true nature; that is to say, one comes closer to understanding and conveying Gods nature by proclaiming what God is not, rather than what God is. It is through a process called unknowing, where we strip our mind of what we think we know, and open to what is, that we paradoxically come to know God. In the mystical tradition of Hinduism, a popular mantra for understanding God and our true nature is Neti, neti, which translates to Not this, not this or Neither this nor that. Practitioners use it as a meditation tactic to release the mind from the many concepts and ideas of things our nature could be and that distract it from knowing what its true nature iswhich is divine nothingness. Of course, this enigmatic double-talk is too much for the rational mind to easily comprehend, which is why mystics typically point one to God through the experience of the intuitive heart, instead, where all true knowledge about God, life, and the universe ultimately resides and can be known. This is not to suggest that because mystics throughout the ages and in every corner of the earth share similar experiences and visions of an ultimate reality, we can conclude that all religions are essentially the same. To the contrary, religions vary greatly in the details of their values, morals, goals, teachings, and practices and, in fact, at the institutional level, are generally discouragingif not downright hostiletowards the mystic understanding of god, for several self-serving reasons, as we shall see. So while it is fair to say that all of the great religions have a mystical tradition within them, this does not mean that the average, everyday

36 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n adherent of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism, or Yorubaidentified by Stephen Prothero in the subtitle to God is Not One as the eight rival religions that run the worldare all essentially on the same conscious path to the same spiritual end goal. This simply is not the case, as Prothero coherently argues, particularly for adherents of our monotheistic religions. This is because the monotheistic god at the center of daily religious practice for many people all around the world is something wholly other than that which we are and from what the universe is. This one and only theistic god is completely transcendent and supernatural, and definitely not immanent in creation in any meaningful sense. This Sky God exists up there in the heavenly realms and is the Supreme Ruler atop the ultimate authoritarian hierarchy of all truth, justice, and human morality. This all-powerful god created all things and now behaves like a self-indulging Superhuman when it comes to intervening in human affairs. Operating with all the good and evil found within us, from love and compassion to jealousy and anger and everything in-between. This very personal god is also highly active in the world showing deep care and concern for mankind, while making decisions as to when He should intervene in the natural order of things and perform a miracle, or not. Indeed, this judgmental god is in a constant state of decision-making on matters as mundane as healing His supplicants of the cold or flu and as important as determining the fate and destiny of all human existenceimportant to us, at least. If He feels so moved, it is fully within Gods power do as He pleases; hence, theres a whole lot of emphasis by the believers in God on making Him happy, for His sake, and ultimately their own. More so, our relationship with God is first one of separation by nature, and thus, there is no knowledge or experience of this theistic god without a bridge built between the sacred and profane. Fortunately, in most monotheistic religions, particularly those we consider to be in the Abrahamic tradition (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam), this innate separation can be reconciled and, therefore, God and humanity can be reunited in some sense of the word, if not while alive here on Earth, then at least in a world one can enter upon death to our physical bodies, which in some cases, we actually get back at a later time through a process known as resurrection. For most Christians, that bridge between our sinful nature and the divine nature of God the Father is the Only Son of God, Jesus Christ, who through his own birth, death, and resurrection opened the gates to the Kingdom of Heaven for

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 37 all who believe in Him andfor Roman Catholicswho do good works in His name. For Trinitarian Christians, another channel for spanning the gap to the divine is through the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Triune God, who permeates this world and makes this theistic god present here and now in our lives, though in a supernatural manner, not in any way innately present or naturally immanent. For most Jews, we make our subordinate relationship to the divine right through adherence to covenants and laws established between the God of Abraham and His people over the past three millennia. The rewards and punishment for following the law or not, as well as the suffering of the innocent experienced at the hands of the evil powers that be, however, are typically experienced here, now on planet Earth and not so much in an afterlife of any real import. And, for most Muslims, our relationship to the God of Muhammad demands total submission to Allahs Will, which is to love and serve God in every aspect of ones life in return for the promise of an eternal life of perfect joy and bliss in heaven. In contrast to the revealed religions that proclaim a theistic god, there is also the historically more recent natural religion of deism, which emerged out of the European Enlightenment. Deists hold thatlike theistsGod is a transcendent Being; but unlike theism, God does not intervene in the natural world. He is the Grand Watchmaker who set the universe in motion with all the necessary Laws and Mechanisms to account for the world, as we know it today, and now simply observes His creation at work. Morality, therefore, is completely absent of any sense of divine appeasement since God cannot be coerced into supernatural activity; prayer in this sense is futile. Human reason, alone, is sufficient to develop ethical principles and motivate moral behavior for the betterment of humanity within its current predicament. As such, our conscience should guide us in matters of morality. Deism also hold that, although God does not act supernaturally in the world, given His intimate relationship with Nature, there exists a transpersonal relationship between creature and Creator through which a wide-range of spiritual experiences can be had, including a profound awareness of God in and through Nature. So while the more traditional deists would be apt to claim God is impersonal vs. personal, this more recent view attempts to literally transcend that dualistic categorization. Many of our Founding Fathers were deists, such as

38 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n

Table 1: Visions of God

Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, James Madison and John Adams. In fact, the religious sentiment contained in our Declaration of Independence was deistic in tone for this reasonliterally, for Jeffersons rational and enlightened view of God as Natures Creator. This brief review of the ways we humans have come to envision God which we will consider more closely in Chapter 6 and throughout Part IIclearly oversimplifies our modern-day religions and their fundamental theologies, as each includes a variety of denominations, traditions, and schools of thought that differ in many ways amongst themselves, let alone other religions. Indeed, as Table 1 attempts to show, there is a broad continuum of worldviews based on certain core concepts and beliefs about the relationship between God and the universe; particularly, what we can and/or cannot know about it. In reality, the distinct borders on each table row are anything but, and the distinguishing marker between adjacent concepts is likely a smooth gradient. In general, however, they do represent the most prevalent religious attitudes about Gods nature and our relationship to that god, held by a significant number of everyday practitioners of each faith in our world today.

T HE M ORAL A RC OF R ELIGION
With these fundamental differences in religious worldviews noted, we must also acknowledge that in their diverse meaning systems, there are also indications of a

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 39 common evolutionary pattern amongst them. For example, if we put all of the modern-day religions that our species has produced into the full context of the entirety of human history going back to our most primitive forms of religious belief and behavior, we can see what appears to be a converging arch of moral development toward a particular universal truth about our human condition, which is of no small significance. What we observe is an evolution of religious worldviews going back some 100,000 years, particularly in the mythologies that define the nature of the relationship between humanity and the gods and beings inhabiting the world of spirit. From that starting point, there is an discernible progression in the primary moral imperative of religion away from manipulating the spiritual world for purposes of basic survival in primitive societies, toward one of becoming consciously aware of our oneness with the universe and with each other for the purpose of surviving our complex needs as a technologically advanced and culturally incongruent species. As our wisdom traditions matured, our religions gradually moved from being mostly about divine appeasement of the heavenly and earthly authorities, toward an emphasis on love for god, love for oneself, and love for others. Not in a nice, linear progression, of course, but in the typical evolutionary fashion of meandering down a long and winding path, punctuated with fitful starts, periods of rapid change, and more than a few dead ends along the way. To see this moral arc more clearly, we must start with the vision of the world our ancient ancestors held tens of thousands of years ago, which was dominated by the notion that they lived in a magical and animistic world, inhabited and ruled by many spiritual beings and gods with supernatural powers and with their own unique personalities. More so, a spirit or soul enlivened all plants and animalsincluding humans. Living together in small, highly egalitarian hunter-gatherer societies, these humans eventually began to believe that those spiritual beings had a deep interest in human affairs, and consequentially, played important roles in the good fortuneor lack thereoffor the individual and group, alike. As such, their moral reasoning lead those early human societies to develop religious practices and moral codes that generally promoted behavior with one of two intermingled intentions. The first would be to win the favor of the spiritual entity in power and control over whatever was needed, whether that be good health through the use of

40 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n the right medicinal herb or plant with the help of elemental spirits, or plenty of easy game to hunt by appeasing the appropriate spirit or god responsible for such activity. The appeasement could take many forms, depending on the nature and personality of the particular spiritual being from whom the supplicants were seeking assistance, though many such rituals and behaviors were clearly sacrificial in nature. Regardless of the specific reasoning and intent, a shaman often mediated the required action to win over the gods good graces, given his ability to communicate with and/or inhabit the spiritual world in an altered state of consciousness. Of course, in other cases, a certain kind of action was required to neutralize or repel the mischievous and threatening spirits that were not all so kind and helpful to humanity. However, in all cases, the underlying motivation of religious behavior was to manipulate the spiritual world to benefit oneself in ones struggle to survive and thrive in ones current ecological and social environment. In contrast to this selfish focus on the survival and expansion of the immediate community, the second moral intent would be to treat the world of nature with respect since they understood the spirits that animate it to be of equal value and standing as themselves. That certainly sounds nobler to our moral senses and more consistent with an altruistic mindset; but at its core, for our early ancestors, treating the world around them in a manner that did not ignite the wrath of the spirits and gods that shared their reality would certainly help reduce the chance of bad things happening. So we may see the seeds of the Golden Rule of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but at this stage of the game, humanity was still just trying to get along with everything around them in their mystifying and magical world so they could eat, drink, have sex, and raise a family within a close-knit community. They bonded together primarily through a deep sense of mutual survival, something that is lost on many of us so-called civilized folk in todays modern society. It is easy to understand why, then, a sphere of moral concern towards others that rarely extended far beyond their immediate social group generally characterized these primitive forms of religion. Since competition for resources was generally the name of the game at the time, other human groups typically posed a threat to survival, not an opportunity to enhance it. Hence, the other was quite often also the enemy, and thus outside their circle of concern. Eventually, around 12,000 years ago, societies evolved beyond the small, bands of hunter-gatherers to larger and more complex communities known as tribes, and eventually to chiefdoms. In the process, societies began to structure

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 41 themselves in more authoritarian hierarchies that established a vertical paradigm of social value and significance, with gods and kings at the top and in total control, the wealthy class next in line, and then pretty much everyone elsethe menial workers that got things done for a living, and then those who got things done as a slave. Likewise, a similar structure was imposed on the spiritual world that consolidated power in that realm to a smaller and smaller pantheon of divine beings that needed to be appeased and manipulated through the proper rituals and practices, which continued to become more mythologized and institutionalized as they evolved. Many lesser gods and minor spirits didnt fare so well and suffered the fate of many a devalued humanthey simply faded into oblivion. As these societies went through their evolution into states around 6,000 years ago, the epitome of this highly authoritarianand typically patriarchal social structure was manifested in the eventual declaration that the tribal chief or state monarchy were themselves gods, and thus the source of all social, political, and religious authority. Of course, as more and more power consolidated into the realm of the authoritarian rulersboth god and humantheir demand for appeasement required a larger and more significant cost, which is how and why animal and human sacrifice came into existence. In looking at the basic personal and social functions of religion up to around 3,000 years ago, we still dont see a significant change occurring in the primary religious concern to do what will get the gods and spirit beings to act in ones favor. However, there were powerful evolutionary forces at work on our spiritual and cultural development over the millennia that did eventually shift that focus. Three, in particular, are worth noting: the first being the increased exposure of various cultures to each other, either through peaceful interactions, or quite often through conflict and conquest. As civilizations grew more complex, human beings became more dependent on each other for the success of their own community or state, so their sphere of moral concern came under pressure to expand beyond ones immediate social group to include non-zero sum cooperation with many others around the world, especially with those who shared common political, economic, technological, and/or spiritual interests. In other words, the emerging new realities of the human condition at this stage in our history put pressure on the human species to engage

42 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n in mutually beneficial social interactions in order to advance our evolutionary progress as a flourishing life form on Earth. Indeed, as cultures clashed amidst all these new opportunities for social contact, relationship building, and the free exchange of ideas and beliefs, often new worldviews emerged that conflated the various gods, symbols, and meanings of the prevailing religious mythologies and rituals in new and relevant ways that better served the larger, more diverseand more inclusivecommunity of humans. For example, in The Evolution of God, American journalist and scholar, Robert Wright, chronicles how the multitude of gods and goddesses of our primitive ancestors and early civilizations evolved over time into the now monotheistic God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. From the early hunter gatherers to the tribes, chiefdoms, and powerful states that occupied our planet for most of our human history, it is clear that what has truly evolved are our ideas, notions, and beliefs about the gods and/or God of our religions, not the gods or God, themselves. More so, the meandering path taken throughout this evolution of religious worldviews has been highly influenced and deeply shaped by the larger social context of each religious community as they responded to the powerful political, cultural, and economic pressures of their world. In some cases, however, the new social realities that arose as cultures clashed served to strengthen a particular community around their core religious beliefs and values, rather than to meld them into the larger cultural milieu. The effect of the Roman persecution of Christians is certainly a well-known example of this social dynamic on the early formation of the church. Another lesser-known example is the evolution of the Hebrew God witnessed to through the Old Testament. What many Christians do not know is that in the earliest Jewish writings, Yahweh is not the one and only god; no, He was just one of many gods, one that originally had a body and was given the people of Israel to rule over by Elyon, the highest god in the pantheon at the time. As social realities changed, however, especially thanks to the 7th century B.C.E. reforms of King Josiah that put a focus on Yahweh alone in the wake of the waning Assyrian Empire, Yahweh eventually superseded all other gods and, as such, the religion of these people morphed into a monolatryor one that recognized their god as the Supreme God amongst all others, the key being there are still others. Eventually, while living in Babylon in the 6th century B.C.E. as exiles from their home in Judah, it became apparent to the Jews that the reason for their latest suffering was their own failure to keep faithful to only Yahweh, who they

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 43 apparently had underrated since He was able to leverage the whole of Babylon against Jerusalem to dole out His punishment onto His people. And so, it was from their interpretation of this fateful circumstance that Yahweh was subsequently elevated to the one and only God of Israel, with no other god beside Him. While the expansion of civilization was driving such kinds of cultural and religious change amongst our species, a second powerful force was also at work on our spiritual evolution. With the wealth and prosperity that certain civilized societies enjoyed, came an increased amount of leisure time that allowed their menand to a very limited extent, womento delve deeply into matters that were not immediately focused on survival, such as theology, philosophy, science, moral reasoning, and, of course, the many forms of artistic expression of the human condition. As more rational analysis was applied to our world and the way it worked, as our wisdom traditions matured and technological achievements advanced, and as our creative expression of our human experience deepened, the evidence of a world whose fate was determined by the wit and whimsy of a few, select human-like gods began to come under serious scrutiny, as did the notion of divine appeasement as a valid or relevant moral imperative. And, in the midst of all this cultural intercourse and these self-reflective activities of the human mind during the advancement of human civilization, there was a third transformational pressure at work on our collective awareness as conscious life forms; namely, the refining of spiritual practices by humans exploring subjective states of consciousness through the use of prayer and meditation, as well as through the development of advanced techniques for achieving mental, emotional, and physical self-mastery. As more spiritual practitioners began to report direct perceptual experiences with a reality underlying our conscious world that is much more intimate and singular in nature than the prevailing religious myths of that time heralded, the predominantly polytheistic worldviews of our earliest societies came under even more inspection and doubt. All three of these factors, as well as many other key dynamics in the processes of personal and cultural evolution, eventually culminated in a period in our history known as the Axial Age, a 600-year period from roughly 800 to 200 B.C.E., which effectively gave rise to our modern day religions and their particular worldviews.

44 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n As depicted by historian of religion, Karen Armstrong, in The Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions, During this period of intense creativity, spiritual and philosophical geniuses pioneered an entirely new kind of human experience. Namely, in contrast to the emphasis on ritual and animal sacrifice for the purpose of divine appeasement by most religions prior to this seminal period of intellectual, psychological, philosophical, and cultural awakening, the spiritual leaders of this time shifted the focus to personal behavior and moral integrity. In four distinct regionsChina, India, Israel, & Greecethis pivotal change in perception of humanitys true potential emerged through such revered and respected leaders as the Buddha, Confucius, the mystics of the Upanishads, Jeremiah, Mencius, Socrates, and Euripides. As Ms. Armstrong points out, these axial sages intentionally attempted to shift the consciousness of their people from their egocentric ways to a life centered in selfless love towards others: The only way you could encounter what they called God, Nirvana, Brahman or the Way was to live a compassionate life Their objective was to create an entirely different kind of human being. All the sages preached a spirituality of empathy and compassion. They insisted that people must abandon their egotism and greed, their violence and unkindness Further, nearly all the axial sages realized that you could not confine your benevolence to your own people; your concern must somehow extend to the entire world. Since most of todays religions are rooted in this evolved sense of universal compassion, Armstrong concludes that beneath their sociocultural differences they all intend to teach the same fundamental insight into our human nature; namely, that living a compassionate life consistent with The Golden Rule is the highest expression of moral integrity and personal fulfillment as a human being. Of course, this significant period of spiritual evolution and expanded consciousness did not completely break the stronghold of the prevailing religious mythology on moral behavior, spiritual practice, and revealed truth. To the contrary, in many cases it triggered a backlash amongst the established religious order for there is nothing more threatening to an authoritarian state or religion than a personally accessible and intimate god that does not require an

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 45 intermediary to be known or to divvy out that gods grace and good favor amongst its people. Although Jesus of Nazareth was not technically an Axial sage, he was certainly a proponent of the primacy of love and compassion in ones life, and clearly his message of a deeply intimate relationship with our Father, which rendered the Jewish Law mute and Roman Law non-binding on ones conscience, was not well-tolerated by the Roman or the Jewish authority. Keep in mind, for Jesus to reference God in such a personal way through his teaching was shocking and revolting to many Jews of his time; likewise, for many theistic Christians today, to consider humans divine through their intimate relationship with God is equally blasphemous and abhorrent. The inevitable backlash to this book from the rightwing authoritarians amongst us will likely provide a fair reading on just how entrenched the mythic worldview is in American culture for precisely this reason: they will perceive it as a threat to their authoritarian worldviews, which they cling to with dear lifeliterally. It also did not totally eradicate the magical and spirit-filled worldviews that continued to pervade many cultures and religions throughout history up until today. For example, Native American spirituality is an evolved form of the primitive hunter-gatherer worldview; in fact, in their respect for Mother Nature and their legendary cruelty towards other tribes and those declared their enemy, many Native American tribes demonstrate how a people can live with a deep sense of connection to the world around them, but with a very small circle of concern for other humans. Likewise, in the modern religion of Yoruba, ranked by Stephen Prothero as number six on the list of our eight most influential religions, adherents spend much time and effort appeasing the Orishas, or divinities, who are essentially spirits that serve as intermediaries between humans and Oldmar, their Supreme Being, Ultimate Reality, and Essence of All Things. But even with the wide-ranging types of institutionalized spiritualities and cultural worldviews that exist today, rarely do you find the ethical ideals of love and compassion completely absent; to the contrary, they are typically held with utmost esteem, are central to most ethical concepts and spiritual teachings regarding right living and moral integrity, and are most often extended to a universal circle of concern.

46 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n

T HE C ASE FOR THE M YSTIC V ISION

In this light, then, it is possible to make the case that our spiritual awareness as a species has been evolving over time towards a more mystical view of god and humanitys relationship to this god. Heres how. As Robert Wright suggests in The Evolution of God, and as we have just laid out, there appears to be a natural progression over human history in our moral sensibilities from one with a small circle of concern focused primarily on the survival and good fortune of a small group or community of humans towards one with a focus on universal love and compassion of all humanity and, indeed, all creation. As such, this directional shift in our collective moral compass may provide evidence of a single, unifying reality underlying our universe and our existence, and serving as the primary motivating factor for this high moral standard. Though, to be clear, this is my thesis, not one explicitly posited by Wright; still, Wrights analysis and evolutionary perspective makes my claim possible, so lets delve a little deeper into his insight. After recounting a particular conversation between the patriarch and his youngest son regarding the existence or non-existence of god, or for that matter, of anything at all, in The Brothers Karamazovthe classic work that culminates a lifetime of soul searching by Russian author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Wright comments: Is there any evidence of something? Any sign that theres more to life than the sum of its subatomic particles? Maybe even something that would qualify as divine, in some sense of that word? If you approach the spiritual quest with hopes this modest, with the humble skepticism of modernity rather than the revealed certainty of the ancient world, then a rational appraisal of the situation may prove uplifting. He goes on to propose: What might qualify as evidence of a larger purpose at work in the world? For one thing: a moral direction in history. If history naturally carries human conscience to moral enlightenment, however slowly and fitfully, there would be evidence that there is some point to it all.

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 47 If then, as implied here, the moral imperative of the mystic vision is consistent and compatible with the moral enlightenment of human conscience grounded as it is in the awareness of a unifying reality at the heart of each being and thing, and if the study of the History of Religions and other social and psychological sciences can show that this progressive development of human morality toward universal love and compassion is beneficial to our wellbeing as individuals and as societies, then it would be fair to say that there is evidence for the mystic vision of God being the most accurate representation of Gods nature and our very intimate relationship with that god. While it may not be overwhelming or inconclusive, by any means, it is logically sound, none-the-less, if you accept the fundamental premise of Wrights argument. However, there certainly are those who do not, often with sincere indignation at such an unnecessary proposition. For example, in a videotaped interview conducted by Wright, American philosopher and cognitive scientist Daniel Dennett denies that any moral direction in human history supports the notion of purposeful design beyond Natural Selection. Such a view would be contrary to the materialistic notion that while Natural Selection designs life, it simply is and does not exist for any purpose intended by an intelligent mind or being of any sort. In other words, there is no Divine Watchmaker of the deistic worldview; there is only Natures Watchmaker indiscriminately at work in the universe. Hence, there simply is no need for a god, as Natural Selection serves as the one and only Grand Designer of the earthly life form we call humanity. A self-proclaimed naturalist, Dennett countered Wrights assertion by suggesting that such direction in the evolution of human morality may more accurately reflect the existence of a universal Ethical Truth in the same sense that there is an a priori Mathematical Truth, which we have come to know and to utilize to our advantage with our evolved brains. For Dennett, then, universal ethicsyes, divine beingno. So while one can plausibly concede that the mystic understanding of God may not be an existential truth just because it appears to promote Ethical Truth, it may still qualify as a pragmatic beliefone might say an effective memerelative to human wellbeing, as I intend to show. So, quite frankly, either waywith or without the notion of a god or God by accepting the presence of this moral arc in human history, there is ground for establishing mutual agreement towards promoting more love and compassion

48 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n amongst our species. As such, in the following pages we will explore just what this means to us as individuals, as a nation, and as a species here on Earth in the twenty-first century and beyond. For if it is true that indeed there is in some sense a universal morality at play in our human conditionwhether divinely inspired or not, then there are obviously serious ramifications for all of our established institutions which give structure and order to our daily lives, from religion to science to politics, and everything in between. Still, while it is precisely in the optimism of the continued evolution of an intellectually enlightened and morally awakened society that we as a nation and species may find authentic hope for our future survival, it doesnt take much effort to recall 9/11 and the tragic events of that day as a result of actions taken by a group of young men convinced they were doing Allahs Will and, therefore, would be rewarded with beautiful virgins all around them in the next world they would enter upon death. Nor to recall the Holocaust, the Inquisition, the Crusades, or any number of horrific crimes against humanity fueled by a passion to please a theistic god out of some warped sense of moral duty and religious superiority. Of course, it is just as easy to see this same disturbing sense of separation from God and from other humans at work in the minds of people of every religious persuasion in our everyday lives. It manifests itself through a whole host of prejudices and judgments held by one person or group against another of a different sex, color, age, ethnicity, faith, value system, or lifestyle; many of which are accompanied by the paranoid delusion that the other person or group is the primary cause of the pain and suffering experienced by oneself and ones own people. The others, therefore, are demonized as the enemy, deserving of dehumanizing hatred and violence in all manners and degrees at the hands of the just and the righteous, who, themselves, claim to act on the authority of their AllLoving, All-Compassionate theistic god. One thing Jesus got right, for sure, is the psychological truth that the highly judgmental mindset of authoritarian people often fails to perceive and acknowledge the hypocrisy between ones actions and beliefs that results when such narrow and simplistic ideologies inevitably conflict with the broad, complex realities of life. Killing others in the name of an All-Merciful God for being infidels ruining ones own religion and culture is certainly a glaring example. But such hypocrisy can be found alive and well in our American society on a wide range of moral issues and ethical concerns, let alone the everyday business activities and

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 49 social interactions that we partake in each day; in fact, as we shall see, it has been with us throughout our history. As we head into the 21st century, the truth before us is that many Americans live in a world dominated by an Us versus Them perspective of the universe deeply rooted in theistic worldviews that draw clear lines of distinction between the sacred and the profane. As such, their derived ethical systems tend to set borders and boundaries around their sphere of moral concern, demarcated by its inclusivity of us and its exclusivity of them. Such moralities, therefore, establish two distinct sets of code: one for everyone inside the circle of concern, and another one for everyone outside it. Unfortunately, as noted above and as history will attest, when one person or group falls outside anothers moral concern, the door is flung wide open for inhumane treatment of all forms and fashion to be exercised by one person or group on another. Again, 9/11, the Holocaust, and the Spanish Inquisition are easy examples to call to mind; however, so are Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook. In addition, one doesnt have to look far for evidence of all the other violent crime within our own countrys borders, from rape to theft to murder to exploitation in all its evil guises. Each one perpetrated as an act by one person of moral superiority over the less-valued victim, and by a person who likely lacks any sense of empathy or care for the ensuing pain and loss imposed on the dehumanized victim. On the other hand, the Us and Them view the mystics proclaim sees the sacred and profane as inextricable realities and extends its universal sphere of moral concern to everyone and everything given the inherent divinity of all creation. The mystic vision is actually alive and doing pretty well throughout the world today, particularly in certain spiritual niches and religious subcultures, and has had varying sway over the many theological and philosophical schools of thought since the Axial age. Unfortunately, however, it is simply not influential enough in todays Western culture to take the reins of the powerful forces that shape our world and our future, and to lead us toward greater peace and prosperity at home and abroad; at least not yet. No, the processes of evolution are still at work. Our collective consciousness of oneness and interconnectivity clearly waxes and wanes over time, and though it does appear to be slowly seeping deeper and deeper into our shared value system with every cultural wave of peace, love, and tolerance that arises throughout our history, we still have a ways to go before we

50 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n see the tipping point where the acceptance of our innate divinity significantly impacts the way we live with and treat each other as fellow citizens of one nation, let alone as fellow brothers and sisters of one human family. In sum, then, we live in a world that isand always has beenconflicted about such basic existential questions as to what we are as living organisms here on Earth, why we are here on this lonely and isolated planet in the first place, andif a god is the reason for our existencejust what is the nature of that god and of our relationship to that divine creator. Pick any two distinct religions or worldviews and they will likely provide two very different answers to each of these questions, although they would all agree on the basic premise that there is a problem with the human condition and, thankfully, there is a solution to this problem. Nevertheless, if two people dont fundamentally agree on the problem, it is not very likely that theyll agree to the same solution; and herein lay the source of so much human discord. This is particularly true regarding the vision of god offered through our mystical traditions and the vision of god shared amongst the majority of followers of our various theistic religions. Indeed, this fundamental disconnect between the realization of an intimately present mystic god and the unhealthy idolization of a supernatural theistic god pervades our Judeo-ChristianIslamic cultures. Consequently, it is at the heart of much of our current suffering as humans here on Earth. It is also, in the eyes of many people, the greatest threat to our survival as a species given the vast impact our religions have on nearly every aspect of our human existence. In this book, therefore, I unabashedly champion the mystic vision of god and humanity as a viable solution to our current spiritual crisis, which, itself, is central to all of our major social, cultural, and political challenges of the 21st century. Hopefully, it will add to the growing movement of spiritual awakening that is occurring within people of every faith all around the world, and help propel us forward as a nation and a species towards a defining moment in history; one where the powers that be will lead us forward with universal love and compassion as our moral guide. Driven by the truth of our divine nature and its call for the dignity and respect of every life form on earth and beyond, such leadership would also greatly improve our ability to provide our most valued political ideal of liberty and justice for all.

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 51

T HE C ONCEPTS OF G OD , M YTH , & D IVINITY

But before we jump into Chapter 1 and begin our exploration of the mystic vision and its implications for 21st century America, we need to cover a few conventions and terms used in the following pages. For example, it will be somewhat tedious for the reader if I overtly refer to the mythic god and mystic god every time I need to differentiate the nuances that exist between them, or make claims about their nature or an attribute thereof. To this end, from hereon in, I frame each god within its proper context by utilizing a specific word formatting convention. For example, I use SMALL CAPS to denote names and qualities of the mystic god, or GOD. To use ALL CAPS certainly would not be appropriate, for as we know from todays messaging formats, this style would suggest I am shouting these concepts at the reader; there is certainly no intention of being so forceful. Likewise, when referring to a wide variety of concepts that intrinsically related to the mystic god, I present them in SMALL CAPS. Again, the significance is that the concept is something other than the more popular connotation of that word. You may see this convention when speaking about YOU, ME, and LOVE; each conveys a certain aspect of GOD. That is, they are being used in some way other than the standard cultural meaning of you, me, and love. For to be sure, the LOVE of which the mystic speaks has nothing to do with the love of a credit card and the many things it buys for us, regardless of the once popular marketing campaign that explicitly claimed all you need is love and a Visa, and implicitly suggested that this American value was endorsed by our beloved icons from the psychedelic sixties and seventies, The Beatles. On the other hand, when referring to the mythic god, or God, of modern religious faith, atheistic spurn, agnostic uncertainty, and deistic transcendence, the traditional First Letter Capitalization is used. So why not use another term for God rather than use the convention of GOD in small caps? Why not avoid confusion and use less religiously charged words such as Spirit or Ultimate Reality? The short answer is that there is good reason to believe that while most religious people today are cognitively living with a mythic worldview, a large number of them are awakening at deeper levels to a mystic awareness of GODS immanent presence and intuitively make the connection between the two. They might give lip service to the dogma and morality preached at the pulpit, and in some sense claim to believe the basic tenets

52 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n of the Christian myth, but they feel in their heart that the real God they worship is something other than and greater than the often uninspiring interpretations theyve been taught through their churchs catechism or bible study. Rather than trash all familiarity with ones concept of God and replace it with something more alien and philosophical like Godhead or Ground of Being, then, there is value in shifting ones theological perspective from mythic to mystic through a restructuring process as opposed to a rebuilding process. Such a transformation may be more comfortable and effective for the person as a whole, as opposed to destroying God and then rebuilding Something Else. (Having taken that path in my early twenties, I can attest that it is not an easy road to travel.) Using GOD vs. God, therefore, properly reflects this primary goal of shifting the understanding of our religious concepts without starting from scratch. Next on our list is the word myth, and its role in human spirituality, especially when we speak of mythic religions or the mythic God. We begin with the understanding prevalent amongst our social sciences that religious myths are stories about a peoples relationship with their god or gods that developed as part of the individual and communal meaning-making process natural to the human mind. These sometimes simple, sometimes elaborate stories have existed since the dawn of human language and provided such deep, practical, and fulfilling meaning and purpose to a community that retelling them helped the individual and society to cope and survive their current existential predicament. As such, these myths became central to a societys worldview; indeed, many ended up becoming ritualized and institutionalized by a sanctioning community of believers and their authoritative holy men, particularly after recorded in written form over the past several millennia; of course, many religious myths have simply been lost to the ages. The challenge with using this word starts with the common notion in American culture that calling something a myth is to refer to that something as not being real; for example, we say, Thats just a myth when pointing out there is no truth or basis in whatever we are discounting. However, as demonstrated by the works of such scholars as Carl Jung, Joseph Campbell, and Mircea Eliade, mythology as we experience it in our religious traditions is not about being historically or scientifically accurate. Religious mythology, as we just noted, is about using stories, symbols, and rituals to convey large and complex meanings that ultimately aim to serve humanitys need to make sense of the world in which we live. Not by intellectually grasping the meaning with the mind; but rather, by

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 53 directly participating in the meaning being conveyed by a powerful and transformative state of consciousness. Myths encapsulated in sacred ritual and holy scripture serve a particular community, as well, in defining its social and cultural context, including establishing the authority of the religious institution itself. One small example of this is how the Roman Catholic Church uses the story of Jesus telling his disciple Peter that he would be the rock upon which I will build my church (Matt. 16:18) to legitimize the legacy and authority of the Bishop of Rome, a.k.a., the Pope, as well as the restriction of priesthood to men only. The veracity of a myth, then, is open to more scrutiny then just whether or not it is factually accurate. We must also embrace a myth for its spiritual and cultural truths, which are certainly more subjective and relative in nature. This is where the real issue comes into play with mythologythe process in which the religious myths are interpreted by the person or community that confess faith in them decades, centuries, and millennia after the experiences that gave rise to them have passed. Too often, the focus is on the symbol, story, ritual, or holy book, itself, and not the underlying meaning. When this happens, the faithful fall into the trap of idolatry, making the myth the object of faith and ignoring the true meaning behind it; or as expressed in Jewish tradition, the believer worships the Golden Calf before devoting oneself to God. In Christianity we see this attitude in the myth of the Virgin Birth of Jesus, which is a cultural theme used throughout history up to and including the time of Jesus to make the claim that a king, prophet, or holy man was a direct descendent of a god or gods. The virgin birth of Alexander the Great and Romes founder Romulushailed a son of god to whom the Romans prayed for graceare two examples of this myth of divine origins. Furthermore, most modern biblical scholars recognize that the Hebrew word in Isaiah 7:14the passage which only the authors of Matthew and Luke used to substantiate Marys virginitydoes not accurately translate to virgin, but rather as, young girl. From this perspective, then, it is not difficult to deduce that early Christians overlaid the virgin birth on the Jesus experience for theological purposes rather than as historical fact. This was very important in the early church busy trying to convert people to the belief that Jesus was the Son of God, the promised Messiah to Gods Chosen People, a message eventually expanded to include all of Gods children, thanks to the ministry of St. Paul and others.

54 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Many Christians, however, refuse to give up this myth, not because they feel compelled to believe in the idea of an angel of God magically impregnating Mary, but because they fear losing the implied divinity of Jesus. They think that if Jesus is not God, then the whole fabric of the Christian myth unravels, as so many atheists are quick to point out. Ironically, if Jesus were to appear in the sky today and say, I am God, but Mary was not a virgin, one wonders even then how many Roman Catholics would release the idolatry of the Virgin Birth myth for fear of being untrue to their doctrinal faith; in such cases, fear can often hide the deeper meaning of the myth from the sincere believer. The position held in this book, therefore, is that there is indeed valuable spiritual wisdom in the mythology that dominates our worlds religions, but unfortunately, there is too much ignorant idolatry standing in the way of experiencing the full meaning of these myths for many modern-day adherents. As we shall see, the process of shifting from God to GOD for most American Christians is really about freeing the interpretation of the Christ story from its fixation on the messianic myth about Jesus. In doing so, the truth of Jesus divinity can be experienced directly by those seeking the same truth within their own humanity. Again, to be clear, the underlying symbolism behind much of the disheartening and dogmatic interpretation of the Christian myth, in fact, represents many spiritual truths about our world. The problem is not with the mythology, per se, but with the intent to read the symbols and metaphors literally and in a self-serving, authoritative manner, as well as in ways that ignore the context and audience of the original author. Readers of scripture should understand the myth-making process, and should consider the historical context of the author and the story, which significantly shapes the intent and meaning of the myth. Such an informed reader, however, requires an educated mind developed through intellectual study and an open heart finely honed though spiritual practice. In sum, then, using the word mythic does not imply a false teaching about God, as much as an idolatrous interpretation of the spiritual truth embraced by the myth, which is a very critical distinction to bear in mind. Lets move on, then, to the word divinity, especially in the oft-used concept of human divinity. Here, again, we should review a rather diverse range of meanings and concepts in detail; but for our purposes, well keep this relatively short and to the point. Lets begin by rejecting the notion of human divinity as a person being in some sense a supernatural or otherworldly God, as if somehow humans by nature are fully endowed gods or goddesses who live beyond the

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 55 confines of natural law. That is nothing less than ego-inflation and unworthy of any serious consideration. Rather, to say humans are divine in nature is very simply to recognize that the essence of who we are as humans is at its core an intimate oneness with that Ultimate Reality which is called many names by many cultures and religions, but probably the least offensive to all is simply THE DIVINE. The key here is that humans do not become divine, but rather humans can realize their divinity. As 13th century Catholic mystic, Meister Eckhart, poetically preached: The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to be God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God seed into God. This spiritual process, then, is analogous to nurturing the growth of a fruit-bearing tree from the potential within the seed. Since, The seed of [DIVINITY] is in us, it is possible for us to actualize that divinity by incarnating this innate potential; and just as well-cared-for pear and nut trees yield an abundance of life nourishing food, so the fruits of our labor to become divine will be the life enhancing experiences of peace, joy, love, and compassion. Eckhart also spoke of our intimate relation to GOD by nature when he said, Though we are Gods sons and daughters, we do not realize it yet. This is not a radically new idea, for it has been common throughout the ages in many non-traditional and native spiritualities, as well as in certain esoteric and mystical traditions, even within our established religions; for example, Sufism in Islam, Gnosticism in Christianity, the Advaitan tradition in Hinduism, and the Zen tradition in Buddhism. According to these spiritualities, many of the biological and learned predispositions of our ego to act selfishly in a competitive, painfully uncaring world challenge the awakening of our divinity within. Otherwise, it would express itself naturally as compassion for all humanity. Since our divinity cannot flourish on its own in our current environment, however, we must engage in spiritual practices that promote the natural, healthy development of empathy, love, and compassion and a consciousness that sees all manifest reality deeply

56 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n connected by an intimate union with the DIVINE to cultivate and nurture its healthy development. However, for the intentions of this book, we need to make a very clear distinction about what we mean when we say that humans are by nature divine, and it is this: in one sense, saying humans are divine beings can be taken as an assertion that there is no distinguishing boundary between human consciousness and God Consciousnessthey literally are one and the same Ultimate Reality at difference levels of experience. However, to say humans are one with GOD acknowledges some boundary between the human experience and the transcendent nature of the DIVINE, yet allows for that divinity to shine through humanity into our universe. The position taken here aligns more closely with the latter, though it dies not discount the possibility or validity of the former. One way to understand this notion of human divinity is to imagine that we are large lighthouses on a coastal shoreline with the potential to enlighten the world around us with the brilliance of our self-powered lamp. Built into the lighthouse all around the lamp fixture are thick, heavy plantation-type shutters that, when tightly closed, completely block the light from shining through; however, as the wooden planks are slowly opened, more and more light becomes visible against the shadows of the rails themselves, until the point thatonce fully openedthe light completely consumes the shutters and nothing but light can be perceived. If we understand the LIGHT as emanating from our lamp as being the DIVINITY within us, and the ability to open and close the shutters as aspects of our human spirituality, we can draw the analogy that when we live an ego-centered life 100% of the time (think narcissist), the blinds are completely shut and, indeed, everything around the lighthouse is covered in darkness. As we shift to a DIVINITYcentered spirituality, however, those shutters begin to open up and the light from within illuminates the world around it for the benefit of all traveling in our vicinity. In Christian terms, this isin some sensewhat St. Paul meant when he said, I no longer live, but CHRIST lives in me (Galatians 2:20). If we also accept that the rails themselves in some way represent our ego (I and me), we observe that although they are invisible when fully opened, obliterated they are not. This is important for it shows us that as humans our goal is not to literally destroy our egos, for they serve us well when properly aligned with the right intentions, but rather to fully open them up, thus becoming imperceptible against the LIGHT of our true self.

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 57 We will return to this understanding of our divine nature in later chapters, particularly through the vision of DIVINITY expounded by modern-day Catholic contemplative, Bernadette Roberts, who haswhat we might sayvery intimate knowledge on such matters. For now, we will highlight the relevant point: the general notion of divinity used in this book is in this sense of humans being one with GOD, not so much being GOD. The reason for this may surprise you; practically speaking, the oneness matters most to me, not so much GOD. Dont get me wrong. I am not saying that GOD doesnt matter. I simply mean that given my primary goal to promote compassion, Im fine with whatever a person wants to insert in the statement, humans are one with _____, if that assertion motivates the individual or community to treat other people with the utmost dignity and respect for sharing that common bond. If a person, therefore, believes that we are all one in nature because we share the same space dust or were similarly designed by Natural Selection, or becausealthough totally separate from God and thus not divine through any kind of participation in Gods naturewe are all equally children of God, as long as we can agree to aspire toward loving and compassionate lifestyles and forms of government, then we have sound reason to cooperate with each other towards those mutual goals. More so, it is precisely in this broad sense of divinity as an acknowledged transpersonal unity within the human race of utmost moral concern, that I am comfortable suggesting that we can alter the religious tone of our Pledge of Allegiance without impinging on anyones freedom of conscience; as implied, there is no compulsion to consent to any form of god, theistic or otherwise, yet the option to infer such is left wide open. Indeed, in so much as we also define divine as supremely good and not solely within the context of a godfor example, we might say this Ben & Jerrys ice cream is simply divinewe are staying within the confines of our conventional meaning of the word. Hence, replacing the current statement, under God, indivisible, which carries strongly theistic connotations, with simply divine, as proposed in My Pledge of Allegiance, more broadly represents and respects our highest shared valuesreligious and irreligious alike. In the same spirit, adding universal compassion as an equal to our social ideals of liberty and justice for all better aligns this statement of intent with our awakening moral conscience. It is in this broader context, then, that I argue for filling in the blank with GOD, mainly because I consider it to be the most valuable unifying concept to

58 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n consider and to accept, as well as to be the one existential truth we need to wholeheartedly embrace. The reason, as we shall see, is the authentic transformative power that a GOD-centered spirituality can manifest in a persons life. It is one thing to imagine a common bond between all human beings and then deduce a compassionate morality from it; it is quite another to directly perceive and experience that unity through a higher state of consciousness by simply living a compassionate life in response to the challenges of the human condition. Indeed, it is in the act of loving others and others loving us that we experience our divinity, not by assenting to philosophical and theological ideas about the virtue of love.

A C ONFESSION OF I GNORANCE
Last, but not least on our list, for my mothers sake, since she once challenged me on this, lets also be clear about the frequent use of the word ignorant throughout this book, mostly in the context of being spiritually ignorant. For many readers, there may be a tendency to take ignorant in a condescending tone, but rest assured, this is not my intent. I use the word ignorant simply in the sense of not knowing. There is knowledge on the one hand and ignorance on the other, but there is no absolute value judgment implied about the person at either end of this spectrum of human understanding. For one of the many insights perceived over my lifetime is my own ignorance in the face of the vast, infinite universe that engulfs my entire being. I am acutely aware that for all the knowledge I have gained over the years, I still know relatively nothing; in fact, I could absorb every known piece of information ever conceived in the human mind, and I would still be light years from even beginning to glimpse the fullness of all that there is to know. As is often noted in our wisdom traditions, it is good to remind ourselves often that fools know they know, the wise know they know not. As such, I certainly dont claim that my vision accurately represents the truth about GOD, humanity, and our intimate relationship, because while I fully embrace my understanding of the world in which I live, I do not cling to it with dead certainty; rather, my assumption is that I am flat out ignorant about some things and certainly wrong in my opinion about others. Therefore, to proclaim the truth would be an arrogant stance that I cannot comfortably take. I am at ease, on the other hand, with my own inescapable state of profound ignorance. Look, Ill be the first to admit that anyone writing a book about resolving the conflicts incited by religion, science, and politics in America could fairly be

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 59 labeled ambitious, to put it kindly. Factor in the absence of any title, degree, or institution behind the author to support his position and arrogant comes to mind. Top it off with a direct challenge to mythic Christianity and the new atheism, and more than a few push the characterization into the realm of audacious. Nevertheless, here I sit at my computer with exactly that intent in mind and with little more than an undergraduate degree in Religious Studies from Duke University and a couple of semesters of graduate study in Developmental Psychology at Louisiana State University for credentials. I could blame it, of course, on a bad case of boomeritis, which is certainly something Ive considered; hell, its hard not to think twice about your intentions when you read Ken Wilbers observation on the many books written by us baby boomers: its true that if you peruse books on cultural studies, alternative spiritualities, the new paradigm, and the great transformation that will occur if the world simply listens to the author and his or her revolutionary ideas, sooner or later this heroic self-inflation starts to get to you. I couldnt agree more. Nevertheless, it is also true that there are ways to share valuable insights and inspire authentic transformation without putting oneself on center stage and absent the its all about me overtones. Therefore, thats what Im aiming to do; whether I hit my target will be for others to decide. What matters to me in this moment is that I am comfortable knowing the motivation driving these fingers to type is inspired by my commitment to YOU.

A 21 S T C ENTURY V ISION OF T HE A MERICA D REAM

With that bit of literary housekeeping out of the way, we can now move forward with our exploration of the subject matter at hand. As I have already indicated, this book interweaves a discussion of god, religion, science, politics and the human condition with observations about the realities and challenges of American life in the 21st century. The following pages, therefore, focus on three main topics of concern to many of us alive today as we progress into the next millennia of human existence here on planet Earth. The first is regarding the effectiveness of the current form of American government to serve the needs of the human beings living within the bordersand under the lawsof the United States. The second centers on the

60 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n predominant cultural values and norms that shape our national sense of identity and purpose; both the principles and customs that bind us together, as well as those that tear us asunder. And, the third is concerned with the role the United States of America is playing in the general welfare of its neighbors around the world; not only what impact our international policies and actions have on the larger human community, but also what our moral obligation is to other countries and peoples in the first place. To this end, I organized this book into two main parts: Part I, The Heart of the Matter, presents a general assessment of what it means to be a human being living in America and on Planet Earth in the 21st century, as well as of the spiritual challenges we face as individuals, as a nation, and as a species. Chapter 1 starts with a general survey of the moral landscape in which we find ourselves as conscious beings at this point in history, by which we then establish the direction in which we intend to progress as individuals and societies towards greater personal and social wellbeing. Chapter 2 then evaluates the current state of our union as a country of widely diverse free thinkers and considers how well we have achieved our goal of making the American Dream a reality for as many Americans as possible. Given our state of affairs, Chapters 3 and 4 are devoted to the notion that in order to meet our current sociopolitical challenges, we must call forth our innate compassion from spiritual exile deep within the recesses of our hearts and minds, and from far away on the outskirts of our collective moral landscape. In this light, the final two chapters examine both the depths of hell to which we can fall (Chapter 5) and the heights of greatness to which we can rise (Chapter 6) as selfconscious animals, depending on the moral path we choose to follow and the degree to which we master our human domain. Part II, A Path to Peace, provides a deeper subject-by-subject analysis that lays out a plan of action going forward to make the most of the opportunities before us. Specifically, it devotes one chapter each to defining five critical topics of concern (Chapters 7-11, respectively): the spiritual dynamics of being human, the key insights of the mystic vision, the mystic challenges for religion (particularly Christianity), the mystic challenges for science (particularly promissory materialism), and the implications of our human divinity in the political arena. Chapter 12 then explores the idea that we need to promote and encourage an intellectually enlightened and spiritually awakened citizenry if we wish to pursue our ideal of The American Dream given the realities of the 21st century, as well as several practical ways to do so. And finally, Chapter 13 reflects on my own spiritual

I n t r o d u c t i o n | 61 journey, then humbly envisions a more encompassing and compassionate dream of national unity and purpose to lead us to a more peaceful and prosperous future. One with our traditional values of liberty, justice, and equality for all firmly in place, but also one with clearer direction and greater integrity under the illumination and guidance of our awakened moral senses. In sum, the following thirteen chapters consider the idea that in order to advance our democracy to its next level of greatnessor at the least pull it out of the current free-fall descent into a crumpled empirewe need to expand the American Dream to embrace our human divinity and its implications for being a compassionate country. Thus, we will scrutinize the dynamics between science, religion, and politics that we must understand and fine-tune, if we are to truly revision the American Dream to include our divine potential and our innate capacity to be much more compassionate as individuals and as a nation. In doing so, we will see that We the People are facing a spiritual crisis rooted in a collective ignorance regarding who we are, who GOD is, and the nature of our relationship with GOD. Along the way we will look for opportunities to identify and encourage creative, practical, and diplomatic solutions for resolving our differences and progressing toward the next great stage in our role as a world leader. In the end, we will see that we are challenged to champion the universal right of every human being to live a free and fulfilling life so as to bring about a new social order on Earth; not the whimsical New Age of modern lore, nor the New World Order forewarning the apocalypse, nor a return to some past period of perfection, mind you, but an imperfect Golden Age of relative peace and prosperity. In facing that challenge, we will come to know a spiritual vision that humbly offers a reasonable beacon of hope for the future of GOD and America, and calls us to become one nation, divine, with liberty, justice, and compassion for all.

PART I ~ THE HEART

OF THE MATTER

This Ones for Gabby

Select remarks of President Barack Hussein Obama in Tucson, Arizona on January 12, 2011, after the assassination attempt of Representative Gabrielle Giffords

Scripture tells us that there is evil in the world, and that terrible things happen for reasons that defy human understanding. In the words of Job, "when I looked for light, then came darkness." Bad things happen, and we must guard against simple explanations in the aftermath. For the truth is that none of us can know exactly what triggered this vicious attack. None of us can know with any certainty what might have stopped those shots from being fired, or what thoughts lurked in the inner recesses of a violent man's mind. So yes, we must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future. But what we cant do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together. sudden loss causes us to look backwardbut it also forces us to look forward; to reflect on the present and the future, on the manner in which we live our lives and nurture our relationships with those who are still with us. We may ask ourselves if weve shown enough kindness and generosity and compassion to the people in our lives. Perhaps we question whether were doing right by our children, or our community, whether our priorities are in order. We recognize our own mortality, and we are reminded that in the fleeting time we have on this Earth, what matters is not wealth, or status, or power, or fame but rather, how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better. And that processthat process of reflection, of making sure we align our values with our actionsthat, I believe, is what a tragedy like this requires.

Setting a Course

ON

JANUARY 12, 2011, IN TUCSON, ARIZONA, President Barack Obama rightly

called out that senseless tragedies like the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords of the U.S. Congress, during which eighteen innocent bystanders were shotsix of whom died, including nine year old Christina-Taylor Green, tend to make us reconsider our own mortality and reevaluate our true priorities in life. The end goal of such contemplation is typically set on aligning our values with our actions, so we can stand tall and proud knowing we have lived a noble life buttressed by the virtues of honor and integrity. Often at the center of this reflection is the nature and quality of our relationships with others, whether they are with our family, our friends, our communities, our coworkers, or even our enemies. As President Obama summed it up, in such situations we tend to realize that what really matters in life is how well we have loved and what small part we have played in making the lives of other people better. For in the depth of our soul, indeed in our biological nature, we humans are compassionate creatures with the capacity to experience a truly meaningful and fulfilling life when it is lived in empathetic service to others. It is precisely from this same well of compassionate reflection and motivation that this book draws forth its hopeful vision for a better life for more people living in America and around the globe, relatively free of evil acts of malice and of institutionalized injustices, alike. What you are reading is one Americans personal take on the current state of our union and the prevailing violence, oppression, injustice, and internal strife that seriously threatens the welfare of our people. While there are many factors in play when considering the full complexity of social and cultural evolution within human populations, the focus here is on the influential roles of science and religion in current American politics. By shedding light on the key dynamics

68 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n between what we believe, what we know, and how we should be governed, we canif we are brave and humble enough to challenge old assumptionsreach a reasonable and insightful perspective of human nature that offers hope of real reconciliation to our citizenry where deep conflicts continue to divide us and festering wounds still exist. We can, if we so choose as individuals and as a people, meet the challenges before us to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and to remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.

M AKING S ENSE OF G OOD & E VIL

Before we tackle the big problems before us as nation, we first need to consider life in modern-day America at the more basic level of what it means to be a human being, living here now on Planet Earth, as we progress into and through the twenty-first century. For this is the ultimate reality each of us awakens to every morning of our lives, for better or worse, depending on our current lot in life. As members of the human species, we start each day as conscious, breathing life forms with some level of genetically innate and culturally learned intelligence. We find ourselves deeply immersed in an epic drama of survival playing out within a miraculous, complex, and finely balanced biosphere, on what we know to be a 4 billion-year-old planet. We step out of bed thinking we stand on immovable ground, when in fact we are on a big, round, space rocksolid on the outside and molten in the middlethat is being whipped through space at an incredible speed around a ball of fiery chemical reactions we call the sun by the measurable effect of gravity, which is literally the warping of space-time in our vicinity by the suns tremendous mass. In this state of fixed motion, we are not alone, for the life-bearing planet on which we have evolved is just one of an incredible number of other cosmic objects inhabiting our 14 billion-year-old universe interacting with each other in ways consistent with the Laws of Nature. That this is happening to usand all around usis an indisputable fact, but why it is happening is certainly very much open to debate. Belief in religious mythology aside, the fact of the matter is that were just not sure; so far in human history the answer to this existential question seems beyond the grasp of our rational mind, as well as our scientific studies. As humans, however, not knowing is an answer most of us are unwilling to accept thanks to a deep and powerful need to make sense of the world in which we live. Unlike every other living creature on

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 69 Earth, humans constantly process our experience by using our evolved brain to ask, What does this or that thing mean? We are, by nature, meaning-making machines that take in information from many sources through various biological pathways (e.g., the five senses plus our emotions, intuitions, rationalizations, and imaginations), evaluate that consumed data, sort it out into recognizable patterns, and then assign value and purpose to each identified thing. For example, we may encounter an animal with four legs and fur, hear it bark as we talk to it, feel it lick our face when we bend down to greet it, and smell its breath reeking of freshly chewed canned dog food. In our mind, we identify all those experiences as Sparky, our family dog, who is of such importance to us that we care for it and feed it as if it were our own child. On the other hand, we may encounter an animal with four legs and fur, hear it bark as we walk by a fence, then feel its unwelcoming vibes as its growl rumbles deep and fierce in our direction. In our mind, we might identify all of these experiences as Brutus, the neighbors feared pit bull, to be and avoided at all costs. Everything in our human life is thus so. We experience, we make sense of that experience, and then we respond to that experience based on its perceived value to us. The higher the value of a thing, the more likely it will be to motivate us to act in favorable ways towards it; the lower the value, the more likely it will be to motivate us to act in unfavorable ways towards it or to avoid it altogether. Although we are counseled by the wise amongst us, then, that we should judge not less we be judged, this process of evaluating our experiences as good or bad is inextricably at the heart of being human. If we consider, for example, the food we eat, the people we spend time with, the job we do, the addictions we crave, the emotions we feel, the pleasures we seek, the hobbies we immerse ourselves in, the goals we strive to attain, the wealth and fame we desire, the diseases we avoid, and the imaginative thoughts we conjure in our headwe can see that for each and every thing that we experience, we have some definition of it and some sense of value assigned to it, and thus, some corresponding level of penchant foror aversion toit. We see this clearly at the collective level as well. For although human cultures vary in many ways all around the globe, the one thing all peoples have in common is a sense of good and evil, as well as good versus evil. Its not just that both moral poles of reality exist, but that good is better than evil and is indeed in a constant state of struggle to overcome it. Every known human culture on

70 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Earth has divided human experience into this dichotomous value system, and then set the norms of social behavior for its community accordingly. In all cases, the goal is to pursue or obtain that which is good and to avoid or destroy that which is evil. Of course, what is good for the collective is not always good for the individual, and vice versa; therefore, a common dilemma for our species is that the social and personal moral imperatives are often at odds with each other.

C ONSULTING O UR M ORAL C OMPASS

Within this constructed world of right/wrong and good versus evil that humans naturally create through our meaning-making activity, we find ourselves in the precarious state of needing to effectively evaluate what we are experiencing at any given moment, and then make the right choice as to how to respond to that situation in a way consistent with our particular value system. This, as many of us know all too well, is not the proverbial walk through the park of ethical nobrainers; to the contrary, it is all too often a drudge through the muck of moral uncertainty and doubt. Fortunately, however, as we face life situations demanding one ethical judgment after another, as well as the motivation and consequential action required to do the right thing, it seems that Mother Nature equipped each of us with an invaluable tool for traversing the rough terrain: that which many call our moral compass. This internal sense of right and wrong intends to point us to what we understand to be in our best interest, though sometimes what we think is for our highest good is in reality anything but that. Our moral compass guides us by utilizing a rather complex reasoning process, one that takes into consideration our instinctive and intuitive sense of right and wrong, as well as our learned definitions of good and evil. At one extreme, some of us live only by personal values derived from a sense of inner authority and moral guidance, though often only after much effort to strip away the incongruent social values acquired throughout early childhood development and beyond. At the other extreme are those of us who blindly follow the cultural norms and religious ideals established by tradition and faith; often as a result of intense indoctrination while growing up, but also by choice for many at some later point in life. For most of us, however, we live our lives with value systems that reflect a more integrated moral sensibility; one where our intuitive

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 71 and learned sources of meaning are intimately entwined and very difficult to extricate from each other. Regardless of our different moral inclinations, it is the interplay between our learned orientation of good and evil and instinctive sense of right and wrong that defines our personal value system and serves to set our magnetic poles within the moral landscape which we traverse each day, where north is oriented with that which we understand to be good and south with that which is not good. We are motivated and directed to think and behave in ways aligned with our personal moral compass. When faced with ethical decisions, we internally consult the direction in which the compass needle is pointing us, and then determine how best we might progress in that direction given all the variables and obstacles that stand between us. Yet, while we may get a clear reading from our moral sense as to how we want a situation to turn out for all involved, we dont necessarily have an unobstructed path before us, nor the sufficient motivation to plow ahead. In reality, we often face dense jungles of confusion, steep mountains of prejudice, raging rivers of emotions, and desolate desserts of apathy that we must successfully navigate in order to progress in the direction to which our moral compass is pointing. Of course, we often hear reference to losing ones moral compass, but the truth is that we never truly live without one. We may determine that what others call good, we call evil and thus reverse the moral poles; but that just alters where the compass leads us, it does not mean the compass is somehow lost or inoperative. In this light, it is difficult to avoid the apparent notion that there is no absolute north to which a moral compass must always point, which, not surprisingly, does not sit well with many people. To complicate the matter, the moral landscape through which humanity has wandered since we first experienced a conscious sense of good and evil is rife with great peaks and valleys where the human heart and mind has known intense joy and untold suffering because of human action and inaction. In such variation in the landscape, even if we know exactly which peaks to seek and valleys to avoid, it is often difficult to see just where the immediate paths before us actually lead. In recent decades, this challenge to an absolute moral north has given rise to moral relativism, which many within our academic circles and amongst our intellectual elites seem to have accepted as the final answer on the matter. Their

72 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n fundamental premise is that value-free diversitythe cornerstone of cultural relativismimplies no one person or communitys moral compass should be judged as more accurate than any other at leading to greater human health and happiness. In fact, although certain religious behavior calibrated according to the moral reasoning of dogmatic beliefs often results in great human suffering, it is not appropriate for peoples of other cultures to judge that behavior as necessarily bad. To infer that one particular moral dictate, or system, is more effective at improving the way all individuals or societies experience life on Earth is pure speculation since the end goal will always be defined by personal or cultural worldviews, and thus are always subjective and relative. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, American philosopher and neuroscientist, Sam Harris, displays little patience or respect for this rather disturbing mindset held by many influential people in science, politics, and religion, including some who serve as policy advisors to the President of the United States. Referring to the typical moral relativists who are unwilling to accept any notion of universal ethics, yet claim they can still contribute to the reduction of human suffering, Harris observes: It is always amusing when these same people then hesitate to condemn specific instances of patently abominable behavior. I dont think one has fully enjoyed the life of the mind until one has seen a celebrated scholar defend the contextual legitimacy of the burqa or of female genital mutilation a mere thirty seconds after announcing that moral relativism does nothing to diminish a persons commitment to making the world a better place. He also claims, Moral relativism is clearly an attempt to pay reparations for the crimes of Western colonialism, ethnocentrism, and racism. To which he adds, This, I think, is the only charitable thing to be said about it. To address this challenge of moral relativism, like Sam Harris, we start by considering these more fundamental and pragmatic questions about the human condition: Is there any practical value in comparing the life paths upon which various moral inclinations take a person? Is rising to the various peaks and sinking into the troubled depths of life simply the result of inevitable and unconscious processes programmed deep within our biology and psyche, or are there ways to consciously utilize our moral compass to lead us to specific locations on the moral landscape of our own choosing? To paraphrase, that last question,

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 73 Can we purposely, and of free choice, make our way to one or more of lifes peaks and effectively avoid one or more of lifes valleys? Asking these questions does two things: first, it gives a frame of reference that dismisses the moral relativist position since it asserts that it is a fair and legitimate exercise to evaluate the effectiveness of various ethical systems on the quality of the human condition. In fact, our Founding Fathers committed the U.S. government to promoting the general welfare of its people. In doing so, they presumed that there are better ways to live as individuals and societies than others are; a point to which well return shortly. Second, it expands the earlier focus from how our moral compass works to the practical exploration of our ability to choose one path over another through any realistic exercise of the mental faculty commonly known as free will.

L IVING WITH THE I LLUSION OF F REE W ILL

Here, we must acknowledge that there is a standing case made by many ardent materialists that there is no such thing as free will when you peer into the deepest mechanics that determine our mental activities. Free will, like much of what we think is real, is merely another illusion of the mind, which itself is nothing more than unconscious neurological activities of the brain. We do what we do because of biological processes that follow deterministic principles and are beyond our control in any meaningful way. Taken to its logical extreme, this position not only challenges our intuitive sense of control over our personal lives, it also undermines the most basic principles and hallowed practices of our American judicial system. To date, our courts have ruled that humans exhibit the exercise of free will, therefore our justice system holds men, women andto some extentchildren accountable for their actions, except when it can be proven that ones ability is severely hindered by morally incapacitating handicaps such as mental illness and temporary insanity. But, if indeed, there is a biological or environmental cause underpinning all brain activity and, in turn, human action, then in what sense can we be held accountable for our behavior? It seems from this perspective that we cant; hence the rising interest in how this fact, if indeed it is true, may significantly impact our already stressed legal processes where raising doubt about responsibility is the crux of just about every criminal and civil case on record.

74 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n However, contrary to this extreme view of determinism, many scientists make the claim that materialism does not necessarily negate the notion of freedom in human behavior. For example, Sam Harris argues in The Moral Landscape that a deterministic understanding of the brain does not negate the meaning of such notions as choice, responsibility, and accountability, all of which still have practical value when discussing human morality and social ethics. Moreover, in Freedom Evolves, Daniel Dennett, regarded by many as one of the leaders in the new atheist movement, argues that we alone among the animals have evolved minds that give us free will and morality. In both books, however, the line of reasoning used to make their case tends to leave one unclear as to the real brain mechanism that is responsible for free will and moral responsibility, if indeed, there is one. But this is for good reason; namely, our understanding of free will is highly dependent on our notion of consciousness, which is something that science has yet to fully define and comprehend, let alone put through the scrutiny of verifiable experimentation, as we shall consider in more detail in Chapter 10. In Who's in Charge? Free Will and the Science of the Brain, the father of cognitive neuroscience, Michael S. Gazzaniga ends up in the same place where our understanding of how the mind works becomes quite fuzzy and unclear. Gazzaniga gets there after attempting to show that, all of the spectacular advances of science still leave us an unshakable fact: we are personally responsible agents and ought to be held accountable for our actions, even though we live in a determined universe. He does so along two lines of argument. The first is the claim that personal responsibility is a social reality, not a brain function. If there were a single human on earth, there would be no sense of moral responsibility; it simply would not exist. To speak of it, therefore, purely in the context of neurochemical activity is a fallacy of fact. It is only in the context of other human beings that personal responsibility holds any valid meaning. The second line of reasoning offered is that to the extent brain functioning occurs as an integration of complex systems running in parallel with each other it creates a whole (mind) greater than the sum of its parts (biological subsystems). As such, mind is an emergent property that in some way operates according to different governing principles than the neurological mechanisms of the brain, itself. The analogy Gazzaniga is fond of using to illustrate this concept is that of a car (the brain) and traffic (the social interaction of brains). In short, you cant understand traffic patterns by deconstructing the way a combustion engine

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 75 converts fuel into energy; the reality of what we call traffic emerges only when multiple cars intend to travel along the same roadways to some other place. And yet, traffic can have an effect on cars themselves; being forced to sit in one place in extreme temperatures and without the proper cooling system, a car can overheat and malfunction as a result of heavy traffic. In the same way, although we cannot reduce the subjective experience of mind to any specific activity in the brain, it appears the mind can in some way alter brain functioning. Gazzanigas position, then, is that, The whole business about the brain doing it before were conscious of it becomes mute and inconsequential from the vantage point of a different level of operation. Thus, as he posited in his earlier work, The Ethical Brain: brains are automatic, rule-governed, determined devices, while people are personally responsible agents free to make their own decisions. Based on these two observations, Gazzaniga concludes that the challenge of science in discussing free will and moral behavior is in finding a yet-known language to accurately and effectively describe not only how the mind and brain interact with each other, but also how they interact with other minds and brains. The final sentence of the book sums up his view with the statement: Understanding how to develop a vocabulary for those layered interactions [of brain, mind, and social context], for me, constitutes the scientific problem of this century. Its also important to note that, as Gazzaniga point outs, there are many scientists who have already abandoned the notion of an absolutely deterministic notion of free will for other reasons, such as the reality of a deeper, indeterminate nature uncovered by quantum mechanics, and the emergence of unpredictable systems from deterministic conditions as described by chaos theory. In both sciences, the notion that one can know all possible determining factors required to predict any given state now or in the future is simply not a fact of nature. As such, he suggests that the only true determinists who reduce all human behavior to the brain with deep conviction are within his own field of neuroscience. Given the complexity and nuances of this unsettled debate, were going to forego this discussion going forward for one simple reason: the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution both presuppose free will as being a real dimension of human life. Our entire existential foundation as a country rests on this premise. In fact, the whole endeavor of political philosophy demands some notion of human freedom to make even the slightest sense to begin

76 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n with. And, as mentioned above, our courts still hold this to be a fact of law, until further notice, at least. It seems, then, that if we want to have a meaningful and relevant discussion about life in America in the twenty-first century, it is only fair that we start with the same presupposition; and so we will. In doing so, we will concede that if humans are indeed nothing more than accidental life forms with no purpose other than serving the further replication of our genes on this planet, and with no ability to authentically control our life path and thus improve the quality of our life, then the hardcore moral relativist and scientific materialists may be right: no specific calibration of ones moral north pole may be more accurate or effective in its guidance to the improved quality of our human existence, or at least if it does, we cant make a judgment of value about that fact. This point conceded, however, such a perspective of life simply doesnt make sense to most of us, nor does it jive with our intuitive sense of right and wrong, or learned values of good and evil. For example, most of us do not accept any act of human mutilation in the name of moral rightness to be anything but a horrific crime perpetrated by a devilishly ignorant person or community. So while the Taliban may claim to have the moral authority to cut off a womens nose and ears because she ran away from her husbands physical and emotional abuse, most of us are quick to condemn such behavior as a cruel and evil act that cannot be justified by any religious authority, By taking this position, we are clearly saying yes, there are better ways to live life than others and, furthermore, if at all possible, the world community has an obligation to intervene in such behavior on behalf of the victims of such dehumanizing behavior.

T HE S CIENCE OF H UMAN W ELLBEING

To explore this moral sensibility a little closer, lets return to putting this question of moral relativity into perspectiveliterally. Doing so allows us to put aside the absurdity of an anything goes or a culturally justified moral position. It also allows us to setif nothing elsea pragmatic north to which our moral compass can guide us. To be fair, most moral relativists and scientific materialists do not necessarily take an amoral stance towards the world in which they live given the lack of an absolute reference point for good and evil, but rather tend to accept a humanistic morality not totally dissimilar from the view offered here. To be clear,

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 77 the position taken in this book starts with the premise that we have the mental capacity to set our moral compass and to make choices to follow its guidance, whether through a real or illusory sense of free will. Then it asks the pertinent questions at hand, such as, What can we do as individuals and communities to thrive (quality of life) and survive (longevity of life) during our time here on Earth as human beings. Are there life choices, living conditions, and human actions that not only ensure the maximum life expectancy of the individual and the longterm survival of the species, but also produce a quality experience of life that can be said to be better than others? Moreover, if so, What are those choices, conditions, and actions that we can make, create, and take to successfully journey along those more productive life paths. In short, we are asking if there is a scale of human wellbeing that we can measure ourselves against as a person, a society, and a species. When framed in this context, what we have learned about the human condition through our ancient wisdom traditions and our modern scientific insights is that the answer to this question matches up with our affirmative intuitions; that is, they respond with a somewhat anti-climactic Yes. If this, however, is contrary to the current sociopolitical paradigms that are shared by many influential and persuasive policy makers in American culture, why do we find this pragmatic approach to morality and its implications for personal life choices and social policymaking so unremarkable? Again, because it just makes plain intuitive sense to us. Each of us deeply believes there is a better way to live our life, and we invest much of our energy in daily activities that we hope will move us towards that higher quality of existence. We also intuitively accept that survival of our species as a good thing, so no need for long explanations there. This is not to say that in each moral predicament we encounter, simply acknowledging a scale of human wellbeing is all we need to know the difference between right and wrong. The notion of wellbeing is hardly free of controversy over exactly what this means. Does it mean we are happy? If so, how do we measure happiness? Does it mean we are prosperous? If so, where is that dividing line between poverty and wealth? Does it mean we live to the ripe old age of 100 years? In addition, if so, does the quality of those years matter at all? The questions raised truly are quite numerous. This is a fair critique of the choice to use a somewhat fuzzy north like human wellbeing as our guide, and a point currently debated in many scientific circles.

78 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n For example, Sam Harris makes the argument in The Moral Landscape that when framing the domain of human existence within the pragmatic definition of human wellbeing, science is fully capable of helping us determine the human values which would best serve us as individuals and as a species in our attempt to both thrive and survive on this planet. This is because, as he posits, questions about values, about meaning, morality, and lifes larger purpose, are really questions about the wellbeing of conscious creatures. As such, science can make factual statements regarding such aspects of human life as positive and negative social emotions, retributive impulses, the effects of specific laws and social institutions on human relationships, the neurophysiology of happiness and suffering, etc. Moreover, just as other facts of science about physical and mental health transcend cultural differences, so it can be for human wellbeing. Harris thus comments, Cancer in the Highlands of New Guinea is still cancer. Cholera is still cholera; schizophrenia is still schizophrenia; and, so too, compassion is compassion and wellbeing is wellbeing. As for those specific cultural values that do lead to better ways of living through different moral paths, Harris asserts that there are facts regarding them, as well, within the organization of the human brain. These facts, therefore, fall within the domain of neuroscience and psychology and can help provide context for the observed variation in our moral systems. Harris thus concludes, The more we understand ourselves at the level of the brain, the more we will see there are right and wrong answers to questions of human values. [Here we see an important point overlooked by many of Harris less-informed critics: He is not arguing that all fields of sciencefor example, physics, geology, astronomy, climatology, etc.can help define appropriate values for our species. Rather, the notion is that while the social and psychological sciences are certainly in a better position to contribute to our understanding of good and bad human behavior than the traditional hard sciences, Harris particular emphasis is on the emerging field of neurosciencewith its recent technological advancements in brain scanning capabilitiesas a critical source of relevant facts on the matter.] As a more concrete example of this notion of human wellbeing, consider that recent scientific research suggests cultures that forbid women from getting an empowering education or experiencing a liberated sexuality have the worst health and highest poverty rates amongst our civilized world. Indeed, the religiously motivated values and theocratic moral dictates that drive these social taboos cause

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 79 some level of undue human suffering in the name of God. The argument Sam Harris makes in this case, and with which I am sympathetic, is that in this research science appears to validate the presumed moral precept that subjugating women to dehumanizing religious practices is not good for the wellbeing of those victimized women. If accepted as true by the global community, it should take action to prevent such crimes against women everywhere on the planet, regardless of the religious justification for them. Likewise, countries should take action at the national level, as well. In this way, facts (science) and values (morality) can have a meaningful and productive dialogue about practical and transformational policies, positions, statutes, and laws, which we can institute to govern ourselves effectively and compassionately. Of course, neither the global community nor any one nation would need to wait for science to provide such validation to act accordingly; but that does not mean the insights and knowledge gained by science are irrelevant, either. There are, of course, many scientists and moral philosophers, alike, who take issue with Harris on his willingness to accept that facts and values correlate in any meaningful way, especially those that hold to the is-ought philosophical notion about science and morality. Their position is that the domain of science can and does tell us what is and how things are, but it cannot tell us how we ought to live our moral lives based on that knowledge. It cannot shed any light on what is right and wrong human action or behavior. Questions such as How should we live? are beyond the limits of objective science and, therefore, science can offer no answers. To the contrary, only moral reasoning as exercised by rational beings and societies can tell us what we should do in any given ethical situation; science is mute on the matter. And then, as usual with such points of debate, there are a plethora of scientists and philosophers with views that run the full gamut of opinions regarding the possible degree of correlation between facts and values, from complete separation, on the one hand, to the potential to fully derive values from facts, on the other. Were certainly not going to come to a final answer on this long-bantered philosophical debate here, so lets at least be clear on the main point. The position taken here about using human wellbeing as a valid reference point for our exploration across the moral landscape is this: we know, for example, that economists can agree on the facts on the ground in a global financial crisis, yet not have an economic model, or readily available solution, for resolving it. Likewise,

80 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n the premise is that those scientists studying human behavior within our social, cultural, and neurological context can agree on moral codes and ethical laws that can lead to greater or lesser human wellbeing (i.e., the facts on the ground of our human condition), yet not clearly understand how to encourage or enforce those ideals. That strategy must be established and executed within a larger social and moral context that goes well beyond facts. Take, for example, the case where a religious culture legalizes female genital mutilation. It is one thing to gather the evidence to show how such painful intrusion of a womans right to privacy is detrimental to her wellbeingif it, indeed, is factual, the science will bear it out; if not, as appears to be the case with male circumcision, then it is not and we move on. But, if we find it to be true, its quite another task to convince that culture to change its God-demanded way of being in the world, short of brutal force, which is not usually a viable option. So, for our purposes, we are not looking for science to solve every moral and ethical issue we face as a substitute for religious authority, nor to tell us how we should live our lives, or govern our nations, down to every last choice and decision we make. To the contrary, as we shall see below, the goal is simply to bring science into the discussion because facts do matter, especially the new knowledge about the working of our brains coming from the field of neuroscience, so they should be included in our religious and political dialogues regarding what is best for our general welfare as individuals and societies here on Earth in the 21st century. We should also note that by equating the promotion of our collective welfare with the effort to maximize our personal and social wellbeing, we once again establish a premise for this book consistent with our constitutional presuppositions: there really are better conditions for humans to live under than others, and to some extent, we have the ability to influence those circumstances for better or worse as individuals and as a society. Taking it a step further, when we examine our vast store of wisdom and knowledge about human nature from antiquity all the way through to our current place in history, there is sound evidence that there are lifestyles and states of consciousness that truly are more beneficial to human welfare than others. In fact, we can even go so far as to say that all indications are that when human wellbeing becomes our frame of reference, our moral compasses clearly guide us across the terrain of our moral landscape toward a life of deep personal fulfillment by following an authentic path of authentic love and compassion.

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 81

E MPATHY , C ONSCIENCE , & THE C APACITY FOR C OMPASSION

The terrain to such contentment in ones life, however, is not easy to traverse; in fact, to journey in this direction and with this state of consciousness requires a finely honed sense of empathy and a well-developed human conscience. Empathizing with othersthat is, putting ourselves in anothers life situation and feeling their experience as if it were our ownis the fundamental activity of a well-developed conscience, along with a healthy dose of guilt or remorse. For when we understand what another experiences, then apply our own sense of right and wrong to their situation, we are moved to act in ways that will promote the good for others, just as we do for ourselves; and, when we fail to do so, we let ourselves know about it with the pangs of guilt. On the other hand, when we are unable to empathize with others and live without any sense of conscience, we live and act in a loveless world void of human compassion. Psychologists diagnose humans who live without a conscience as suffering from sociopathy or psychopathy. The core dysfunction at the heart of these sociopaths and psychopaths is the inability to empathize with others or to feel any sense of remorse for their unscrupulous actions. They are, therefore, incapable ofand uninterested inextending their moral concern beyond themselves. Their moral compass is pointed to their own sense of hedonistic pleasure and selfgratification with no regard for the welfare of others, or even worse, with a pathological drive to use othersespecially at the others emotional, physical, and financial expensefor their own selfish purposes. Here, then, we see the difference between our moral compass, which directs our life choices based on the orientation of our personal value systems, and our conscience, which strives to motivate us towards a life of love and compassion by empathizing withand doing good forother people. We all have a personal value system to navigate us through life, but we dont necessarily have a conscience to guide us to living more compassionately. Sadly, even for the vast majority of us living with a conscience, this doesnt mean we have a healthy or well-developed one. Like other aspects of our biology and psychology, without the proper genetic programming and environmental nurturing, the quality and effectiveness of the human conscience may suffer significantly. Likewise, being in poor physical or emotional health can have a direct effect on how willing we are to be compassionate, whether that impact is just from having a cold or a bad day, from overmedication on legal or illegal drugs,

82 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n or from suffering a psychological disorder such as manic depression or schizophrenia. Again, as noted above, our court systems allow for the plea of innocence in the absence of free will due to mental illness or temporary insanity for precisely this reason. On a more practical level, there are two primary dimensions of human conscience that determine a persons capacity for compassionate behavior; namely, inclusivity into the circle of concern and motivation to take action. For example, a person might care deeply for a family member with liver disease and might be willing to donate a kidney without hesitation, but not so for the brother of a close friend. This may be because he doesnt like the friends brother (and hence the brother is not within his circle of concern), or maybe he empathizes with him deeply and feels some sense of guilt, but is simply not willing to risk his own life (hence lacking the motivation to be selfless). This is not to say this persons choice to not donate a kidney to someone outside his or her family is immoral; it is simply to show how the interplay between inclusivity and motivation within ones conscience can influence a persons choice to act altruistically, or not. In this light, we can see the two poles of ones moral compass in relation to ones conscience and motivation for compassionate behavior: when pointing south, ones circle of concern could be extend no further than beyond oneself and the impetus to act for the benefit of others could be non-existent. As weve said, the medical field recognizes such people living without a conscience as sociopaths and psychopaths; they still make choices in life based on what they define as pleasure and pain, right and wrong, and good and evil, they just do not have the interest nor the necessary capacity for empathy or guilt required to care aboutor foranother person. They live lives void of compassion and, in most cases, lives destined to end in misery and disgrace. By contrast, narcissistswhose compasses also tend to point in a southern directionare generally differentiated from sociopaths due to their ability to be empathic; that is, they can feel what others feel and make some semblance of an emotional connection with other people. Hence, they display a circle of concern with at least some inclusivity of others and may even feel a twinge of guilt. But, ultimately, their motivation to act is always me-first; hence compassionate behavior and authentically fulfilling lives are not typically associated with narcissistic states of consciousness.

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 83 When our moral compass is pointing to the north, however, a persons circle of concern could encompass all of humanity, or even all living life forms, and the motivation to act for others could be paramount. To most of us, these are the true heroes and saints of the world. Jesus of Nazareth, Siddhartha Gautama, St. Francis of Assisi, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Jr., these are the humans that we think of when we talk about achieving the heights of human compassion. All throughout history, every culture and religion has recognized those with the biggest hearts and the bravest souls as living in accordance with the highest value and greatest honor in being human. For good reason: in such men and women, we see our fullest human potential and our greatest hope for survival given our current predicament on Earth. Then, of course, there are the majority of us living a life somewhere between that of the sociopath and that of the saint. Some with circles of concern that extend no further than our immediate families or communities, nor beyond our state or nation, nor to any one not of the same race or ethnicity. While others live with concern for ones fellow man that reaches well beyond the boundaries of any distinction of race, religion, or nationality, but still within the limits of ones own personal and shared values and beliefs. Likewise, some of us find little motivation to act selflessly for this reason or that and do little more than donate a few dollars here and there to a church or other non-profit organization. Others, however, are so highly motivated to help their fellow man that they dedicate their entire careers to caring for others through selfless service. Indeed, it is easy to see that at the core of being human--here, now in the 21st century of our modern erais that fact that we are moral beings; and, at the heart of our moral life is a fundamental dynamic in play between our moral compass and our Captain in Command, our human conscience. As such, our ability to navigate the moral landscape of our personal and social lives with deep and authentic compassion greatly determines the quality of human existence on this planet, indeed our very wellbeing as healthy, fulfilled individuals and as functional, cohesive societies.

S ELF -M ASTERY T HROUGH C LEAR M INDSIGHT

Lets turn now to the observation that just as there is a continuum of moral behavior that runs from one extreme to the other, so it is with free will. To assume, as we have, that free will is a real mental faculty present in our human condition

84 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n does not necessitate that one either has it or not. In truth, the degree to which one exercises choice in their actions varies greatly. What determines this degree of authenticity is the persons ability to possess what we call self-awareness, or as Dr. Daniel J. Siegel, a clinical professor of psychiatry at the UCLA School of Medicine, has coined it, mindsight. In short, the more clearly we understand how we processes information, both in how we interpret it and in how we respond to it, the more opportunity there is for the person to consciously intervene in the moment and direct the behavior in one manner or another. As a simple example, we go back to the barking dog, Brutus. Upon first hearing the barking and then subsequent growl, a person once bit by a dog may instinctively react in a self-protective manner, which may include the inclination to run away as fast as possible. However, if that same person is aware that the instinct to run is reflexive, he or she could then analyze all the other factors at hand; in this case, since Brutus is behind a fence and bound by a link chain, there is no real danger. In that moment of awareness, the person chooses not to run and chooses to continue walking down the street. On the other hand, if the instinctual fear gets the better of the person and they simply go with their reactions, it would not be accurate to say that he or she chose to run away; that was an instinctual response based on biological and learned behaviors that went unfettered without a conscious decision to alter it. Of course, this is a very crude example of a very complex reality, which when fully understood, strongly suggests that authentic free will is exercised much less than most of us think. In fact, when you factor in all the physical, emotional, psychological, sociological, and cultural influences on our behavior at any given moment, it is easy to see why some are inclined to take the position that free will truly is an illusion in most of our lives. When we think we choose a career as a doctor, we might really be doing it to please our father. When we think we choose to react with anger and disgust at anothers lifestyle, we might be acting from learned values that degrade that lifestyle without even understanding what it entails. And, when we think we choose to give freely of our time at our church, synagogue, or mosque, we may, in fact, be driven by of a sense of guilt and remorse for some past transgression we have committed. So it is with the full myriad of human behaviors that we exhibit in our life. In everything we do, whether its related to eating, playing, working, studying, socializing, or having sex, there is always an opportunity to choose to act in a

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 85 conscious way; however, more often than not, those opportunities are missed and our unconscious motivations kick into gear. And, thats where self-awareness comes in. As Dr. Siegel argues for and supports with case studies in Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation, human beings have the innate capacity to perceiveand then understandthe internal workings of our own minds. As such, we can take ourselves off the autopilot of ingrained behaviors and habitual responses acquired through our childhood and adolescent development, and tame the emotions we experience as they happen, rather than have them overwhelm us with their power. In this way, we develop the transformative skill of self-mastery and, consequently, increase our ability to exercise some sense of free will. To become compassionate beings, then, we must possess the ability to make choices that are consistent with the direction in which our conscience dictates. Unless we fully understand who we are, how we experience and interpret the world and what drives us and motivates us to act in the ways that we do, we likely are not living a life fully guided by our conscience and directed by our will. In spiritual parlance, most humans do not truly live with an awakened sense of self-awareness or with a highly effective moral conscience. Instead, they meander through life at best half asleep, and at worse, in a deep slumber, with little more control over their lives than a powerless boat adrift in the ocean, guided only by the waves, wind, and tides, themselves governed by the unpredictable whim of Mother Nature. Yet, all the while, they live under the delusion that they are in complete control at the helm of the ship called self on their voyage through life. The irony is that, assuming we have the basic health required on all levels mental, emotional, and physicalwhether we live an awakened life or sleep-walk through the one we have, it is quite often our choice; again, severe physical, mental and behavioral handicaps, notwithstanding. We can make conscious decisions to increase our self-awareness and to expand our capacity for more authentic and compassionate behavior, if we set our mind to it and if we put in the practice and required effort. Indeed, we can see through the veil of delusion regarding our sense of self-control, consciously take command of our human vessel, and then guide ourselves to the distant shores of moral integrity and personal happiness using the navigational guides and innate power available to us through our human nature.

86 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n

O VERCOMING OUR S PIRITUAL H ANDICAPS

If we take an honest survey of the current moral landscape in America, it certainly appears that many of us live with a relatively weak conscience, where empathyif we are willing to feel itloses out to lack of motivation and our freedom to make truly compassionate choices eludes us. But this is not because we prefer to live an immoral life and thus use our will to guide us in that direction; to the contrary, quite often, this is due to a fundamental shortcoming in the way our evolved brain processes information and inadvertently sidetracks us from our intended goals. For example, there is sound evidence that we are innately programmed to feel our deepest sense of empathy and consequent motivation to act for a single individual human being. However, once we take a second person into consideration, the level of empathy and concern wanes; add yet another, and another, until we imagine a widespread epidemic, and our ability to feel for that many people at once dwindles down to near insignificance. In essence, we fail to empathize with the innocent victims and, thus, dehumanize those suffering that predicament. Likewise, we also have a tendency to be more compassionate towards others due to physical proximity, while those in far off places spark little empathy or guilt within our conscience. Hence, many moral and loving people understand and accept that famine and hunger are real problems, especially in the impoverished nations of the world, but such knowledge rarely results in doing much about it in a direct and immediate manner. This is why TV commercials for helping those in need in distant locations focus on one victim at the time; putting the face of a real suffering human in our living room increases the likelihood well make a financial contribution to the charity-seeking non-profit organization. Now add to these moral handicaps our many other neurologically evolved biases in our cognitive processing that constantly push us off the path to our envisioned future life filled with great personal happiness. For example, in Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert illustrates the many shortcomings of our imaginative foresight cause us to misconceive what the future holds for our sense of personal satisfaction, and thus lead us to less than optimal choices in our lives relative to our pursuit of happiness. For when we consider actions that would either favor us in the immediate moment or in the future, we tend to overvalue our present self and short-sell our future self. When we imagine the long-term emotional effects certain events will have on us, we tend to over-

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 87 exaggerate the impact on the quality of our life, as in winning the lottery (overestimate happiness) or going blind (overestimate unhappiness); the truth is that in most cases, we tend to always revert to the general level of happiness at which we were living before the event occurs. When our choices do lead to unhappiness, we tend to find ways of rationalizing the situation to make it more acceptable; hence, we also tend to make the same errors in imagination and choice repeatedly. More so, we often anticipate events and outcomes to be dreadful, when in fact, they sometimes turn into new, unexpected opportunities for happiness; hence, choices to avoid a bad situation sometimes prevent good things from happening to us. And, finally, not only is happiness rarely as satisfying as we imagine it to be, it rarely lasts as long as we think it will; fortunately, the same mistaken expectation applies to unhappiness. In addition to the failure of imagination, there is also the question of our decision-making abilities and their effectiveness in leading us to make the right choices relative to what is good for us. Too often, our brain fails us there as well, given both improper reasoning and the assumption of false premises, often thanks to how neurologically determined we are to impose coherent meaning on our world, even if it is not true, as we shall discuss in more detail in later chapters. Indeed, for most Americans, our reasoning skills suffice to get us through the day, but were certainly not a society of Einsteins. And, as a final example of our moral shortcomings, it appears we sheepishly accept the many forms and degrees of evil and injustice in the world because we find it easier to just surrender to this inescapable fact of our human condition; such castration of the human will is, indeed, a sad, disturbing state of affairs within our own national borders, as well as all around the world. In the face of all these cognitive challenges to our conscience as we traverse along our personal moral landscapeand many morethere are public policies and social welfare issues that come into play, as well. For example, in The Empathy Gap: Building Bridges to the Good Life and the Good Society, philosopher and cognitive scientist J. D. Trout interweaves the current theories and recent findings of psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience to examine ifand, if so, howwe can make better personal decisions for our wellbeing and, at the same time, design and implement social policies that improve the wellbeing of everyone living within our borders. The problem that Trout points out is precisely the widespread lack of motivation amongst our citizenry to do the right thing, often

88 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n just for ones own sake, let alone for the benefit of the community at large. Consistent with the point weve been making, Trout sums up our current moral dilemma with the simple observation that, "Free will is a bit like a sheep. There really is an animal there, but it's amazingly skinny when you've shaved all the wool off." In this sheepish nature, however, there are also opportunities for We the People to encourage more mutually beneficial behavior amongst our citizenry. As one small example, does your office have a problem with men making a mess when using a public urinal? (Mine certainly does.) Heres a proven solution: put a decal of a fly in the bottom of the urinals. Why? Well, because it gives men something to aim for, which, in turn, activates our instinct to hit a target when presented with one; simple, yes, but effective, none-the-less. Given what we know about how the brain processes information, there are many similar ways appropriate behavior can be encouraged and/or persuaded through environmental cues and triggers,. While this may sound too much like Big Brother watching over us, more rational analysis suggests that with the help of science, we can implement effective policies and programs of this nature for businesses, governments, and societies in fairness and with respect to personal freedoms. Trout ardently supports such a national commitment to leverage our knowledge of our imperfect moral nature to help keep us on the straight and narrow to improving the quality of living for as many Americans as possible. As he states it: Wellbeing programs designed for the common good must give the greatest number of people a fighting chance to be happy. A humane government steps in with social plans when our individual judgment fails us. A new twenty-first century Enlightenment of the head and heart, of rationality and empathy, can help us build and implement those social plans so that we don't fail others. Indeed, our future success does require a spiritually deft balancing act of our dichotomous human nature. So, while we certainly have and will continue to emphasize the need for more compassion as we traverse our personal and collective moral landscape, we will also continue to acknowledge our physical, mental and emotional handicaps that tend to weaken our conscience and to

S e t t i n g a C o u r s e | 89 hinder our progress towards greater wellbeing. We must acknowledge that we are in many ways disabled beings relative to the moral choices and actions that lie before us given the way our brain is wired to function. Again, as Harris, Gilbert, Gazzaniga, Siegel, Trout, and others of like mind all rightly point out in their research and writings, the perspective we gain from neuroscience and many other psychological and sociological disciplines is critical to overcoming those inherent shortcomings, and for establishing a healthy dialogue between empathy and reason on matters of moral concern and human wellbeing, both individually, and as a nation.

S EEKING A NSWERS TO THE B IG Q UESTIONS

With this foundational perspective of human morality now established, particularly the interplay between free will and our journey through the moral landscape of life, we can return to the original question raised above regarding our existence here on earth. While it may not be on the forefront of our mind at every moment, the answer we accept for the questions Who are we? and Why are we here? are often the very ones that give us reason to get out of bed in the first place. They are central to our core value system, and they consciously and unconsciously give context to the entirety of our moral landscape. We may inherit the answer to each from our parents or religious community, we may adopt answers that others may tout, or we may even discover our own answers through various philosophical, theological, and/or spiritual explorations. Still, whether the answers we accept are rooted in a creation myth, a random cause, pure nothingness, or something else altogether, we each do what we do, say what we say, and believe what we believe in the context of why we think we are here now, living as human beings. We get out of bedif were lucky enough to have onewith some sense of self-worth and purpose grounded in our most fundamental worldview. Of course, for some people, when the inability to make sense of our experience becomes so overwhelming and disturbing that they see no value or purpose in their life, they sadly choose to end their life; in this case, the choice of death is valued over a life of meaningless pain and misery. Truly, just as we die without the essential food and drink required by our physical body, so do humans perish without the proper meaning required by our evolved psyche to embrace the full experience of lifein all its glory and disgrace.

90 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Once we are up and finished with our morning routine, some of us go on to live a day full of personal satisfaction and with generous goodwill towards others, then we sleep well at night and start over again the next morning; many of us do not. In truth, most of us struggle every day on some level of being human. Some desire nothing more than to simply have food and water to survive, while others must gather the spiritual strength to handle the dehumanizing adversity that they bear upon opening their eyes each morning. Though most of us do not live in such dire conditions, we still face daily challenges in our lives that wear on us and beat us down, especially through our relationships with the other people with whom we share this planet. At the end of our day, we gladly climb into bed and fall asleep to escape our troubles for a short time, only to encounter the same concerns of our waking life in our nightmares and bad dreams. This experience we share as humans whether we live in Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia, or the Americas; it is a common bond whether were rich or poor, black or white, male or female. However, we differ greatly in what we make of our situation, in how we respond to the hand dealt to us, and in why we make the choices we do given the options that may or may not be available to us. It all comes down to what we value most, and in which direction our moral compass is guiding us. Indeed, when our actions align with values consistent with a healthy conscience, we can as individuals and societies navigate the moral landscape before us and effectively and successfully move ourselves to higher ground away from the prevalent violence and suffering that afflicts our nation on all levels. We have thus set a course for our exploration of life as a human in the 21st century, particularly in the United States of America. One that will continue to challenge many of the old assumptions of our science, politics, and religion, and postulate that they have undercut our value and importance as conscious life forms intimately related to our CREATOR. They have also undersold the necessity of an enlightened and awakened citizenry that can govern and lead our efforts to provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. So lets take our next step forward by shedding light on the current state of our union as supposedly one indivisible nation under God.

The Mindless Menace of Violence

Remarks of Senator Robert F. Kennedy to the Cleveland City Club, Cleveland, Ohio, April 5, 1968, the day after the assassination of Martin Luther King

This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity to speak briefly to you about this mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives. It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No oneno matter where he lives or what he doescan be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on. we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition they desire. but this much is clear; violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul. For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter. This is the breaking of a mans spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach

that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemiesto be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered. We learn, at the last, to look at our bothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fearonly a common desire to retreat from each other only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this there are no final answers. Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is not what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of human purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence. We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of all. We must admit in ourselves that our own childrens future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled nor enriched by hatred or revenge. Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution. But we can perhaps remembereven if only for a timethat those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seekas we donothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can. Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.

Our State of Union

LETS FACE IT. AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL,

adorned by Mother Nature with her spacious skies, amber waves of grain, and purple mountains majesty above the

fruited plain, isnt looking too good these days in the eyes of many a beholder. With her skies congested with delayed flights on failing airlines, her fields laden with the overproduction of corn and barren from devastating droughts, and her mountain tops ripped off to exploit her limited supply of fossil fuels, to scores of loyal citizens her appearance is rather ragged and tattered, both literally and figuratively. Indeed, its hard to overlook the beating unleashed upon her by the ecological issues of sustainable resources and environmental pollution, an unrelenting assault incited primarily by our lifestyle of voracious consumption and irresponsible waste. But the rips and tears on the surface of Americas elegant clothing, and the scratches and bruises on her youthful skin, are not the only injuries diminishing her natural beauty. Deep within her heart, brain, lungs, and gutsthat is, in the very depth of her humanitythere are many equally menacing ailments eating away at the essence of her life force. With such names as The Afghan War, The Drug War, The War on Terror, The Military-Industrial Complex, The Healthcare Crisis, The Housing Crisis, Illegal Immigration, Gay Marriage, Partial-Birth Abortion, Stem Cell Research, Capital Punishment, Corporate Welfare, Boom & Bust Economy, Political Scandal, Government Corruption, Global Warming, Poverty, Racism, Recession, and Globalization, these internal tensions are causing great distress and, in many cases, undue harm to the true soul of AmericaWe the People of the United States. Unfortunately, though the crises may have new names and take on new dimensions of potential threat and harm, our beloved nation has never truly been free of internal stress and civil discontent. The undeniable fact is that she has never experienced an authentic period of peace and contentment for all, and to the

94 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n dismay of many, it is questionable whether she ever will. Since our countrys very inception, we have constantly struggled to keep our commitment to our common good from being torn asunder by an inherent split in the cultural foundation upon which we attempt to stand united as one people. The rather sordid reality is that our Lady Liberty was born into a pretty dysfunctional family, deeply divided by the conflicting economic interests of the North and South, by the clashing political ideals of the Federalists and Republicans, and of course, by the deep-rooted prejudices of many against such human qualities as skin color and gender. Lets not forget that during the 18th century, not only were blacks subservient to whites in the form of slavery, but women were also widely treated as inferior to men, especially in the areas of business and politics. The glaring absence of female signatures on the Declaration of Independence, as well as the fact that when Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, won a seat in the House of Representatives in 1916, she became the first female member of Congress, sadly reflects this inequality towards women in American history. Fortunately, thanks to the wisdom and courage of our Founding Fathers and Mothersat the turn of the 19th century, and later by Abraham Lincoln when this family feud came to a head in our heart-wrenching Civil War, we managed to make it into the 20th century in relatively one piece. However, a change in century did little to stop the continual onslaught of new and unexpected challenges to the underlying values and ideals in which we ground our sense of national identity and upon which we mount our united stance against all forms of oppressive tyranny. The good news is that many intelligent, creative, and brave Americans have successfully responded to those threats with nothing less than the full ingenuity, courage, and compassion of the human spirit. The bad news is that many of our countrymen have also fallen short of doing the right thing when called upon, and instead of bringing good into the world, have brought forth something other than that, at times pushingand in certain cases, crossingthe border into the realm of evil against our fellow human beings. In light of this potential for both inspirational greatness and dehumanizing failure, the question that comes to mind is, How well are we progressing towards a strong state of union that diligently promotes the common good and guards its people against the vices of humanity? Regardless of whatever imperialistic hallucinations patriotic fever may produce for some towards our idealized role as a guiding light for democracy in

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 95 the world, the answer is that we have yet to truly embody the American ideals affirmed in our two most sacred documentsthe U.S. Declaration of Independence (1776) and the U.S. Constitution (1787)right here on our own soil. Indeed, the Torch of Enlightenment held high by the Statue of Liberty has yet to illuminate the present injustice and oppression that lurks within her shadows. The inhumane and second-class treatment of African-Americans alone remained in the shadows for the first two hundred years of our history, with the discrimination against women accompanying this shunned ignominy for the first one hundred and fifty. For those with open eyes, it is clear from our past and present state of domestic affairs that while we have achieved great things throughout our history that give us good reason to be proud, we have always struggledand continue to strugglewith some very critical challenges to our ideal way of life. For example, we seem to be incapable of setting a united strategy for reducing the most egregious forms of poverty, despair, and disease within our own cities and neighborhoods; of providing healthcare to every one of our fellow citizens regardless of their lot in lifeif not at least for our children; and, of using our resources and imagination to develop alternative fuel technologies so we can free ourselves of our addiction to foreign oil and reduce the human impact on climate change. We also seem to be having difficulty keeping authoritarian bullies in the government, media, and private sectors from hijacking our democratic ideals and flying us unwittingly towards the borders of a fascist state. For those of us sincerely trying to move our country in a positive direction, with all the headwind against us from the political powers that be, it feels like in our progress to more freedom and prosperity for all, we are continually taking the proverbial two steps forward and one step back.

T HE S OCIAL C ONTRACT OF A MERICA

In light of these challenges before us, lets consider what it means to be a human being living in America at this moment in human history by starting with the resolute words which form the preambles to our Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution, and which opened this book. For many Americans, to meditate on these profound statements of intent awakens a deep sense of awe towards the beauty and elegance of our most precious national treasure: that iconic idea known around the world today quite simply as the American Dream. Both a symbol of hope for all who suffer the

96 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n shackles of oppression and the promise of opportunity for all who work hard for a better life, the American Dream is inarguably and justifiably the one sacrosanct value above all others for which so many Americans have sacrificed so greatly and towards which so many people from around the world have been so desperately drawn. It is, at its core, a powerful and inspirational sociopolitical idealindeed, it is a shared visionembraced by a community of human beings united in their desire to live free of tyranny over the way its people think, feel, believe, and behave in the world around them, as well as how they thrive and survive here on planet Earth. As expressed so clearly by our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, this national ethos of freedom and opportunity for all is deeply rooted in the premise that the fundamental right of every human being to pursue his or her personal happiness is divinely granted by our Creatorwhomever or whatever we conceive or believe that god or creative act to be, or not to be. Liberty is inherent in being human, it is not established by any man or institution of man; for in some sense to be human is to be intimately related to the source of our being, a fact of the Laws of Nature and Natures Godas Thomas Jefferson penned it in the body of the Declaration of Independenceabove any man-made law. Therefore, bestowed with this divine birthright, each person deserves a genuine opportunity to live free and prosper, regardless of race, color, creed, religion, gender, sexual orientation, social status, or any other circumstance of birth. In short, all human life merits reverence and respect for its common purpose and intrinsic value, not abuse and exploitation under the deception of alienation and inequality through which unjust powers have ruled their parts of the world throughout the ages. The binding social contract inherent in this vision of a community of divinely ordained humans holds that being equal in nature and purpose demands first being equal in the eyes of the law. Consequently, to protect the rights to freedom of conscience for the individual and equal opportunity for all, We the People instituted a strong government of the people, by the people, for the peopleas Abraham Lincoln so succinctly put itto safeguard these cornerstones of a liberal democracy. Our government must, therefore, effectively establish and enforce the rule of law, defend the community from domestic and foreign harm, care for the welfare of its citizens, and pass the guiding light of Lady Liberty and the moral force of Lady Justice from one generation to the next.

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 97 Fortunately, for present day citizens of the United States, the three million inhabitants of 18th century America living throughout thirteen distinct and diverse British colonies committed themselves to the realization of this great social, political, and spiritual vision. Indeed, they acted upon this pledge to each other by first wrestling their political freedom from English tyranny through the Revolutionary War, then by establishing the legal and political framework within which the state and federal governments could secure each persons right to pursue a better life with the eventual ratification of the U.S. Constitution.

F AILING TO L IVE T HE A MERICAN D REAM

Ever since our early attempts to form a perfect union of individuals and states with many dissimilarand often directly opposingphilosophical and theological ideals, regional interests, cultural values, and economic concerns, there has been an alarmingly deep chasm between the dream of equality for all and the reality of injustice for the poor, uneducated, oppressed, and just plain unfortunate. The result is that many Americans throughout our history have lived very separate and unequal lives amongst us. Sadly, even to this day, a wide gap in the integrity of our collective soulbetween our highest ideals and our real actionscontinues to threaten our success in achieving true freedom and opportunity for many deserving Americans in too many subtle and not-so-subtle ways. The glaring hypocrisy between the American Dream and the reality of American life that has been with us since our inception is easily seen during our colonial period in the exploitation and near extermination of the native peoples of the New World. It was present as well during the long-labored birthing of our nation that was deeply scarred by the unjust treatment of non-white people, an ignominy epitomized by the 1787 constitutional definition of anyone who was neither free nor Indian as being worth three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representationa disgraceful law that stood for eighty years until the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865. It is also obvious in retrospect when we acknowledge the common subjugation of women in everyday life to a world dominated by patriarchal norms of behavior; hardly unique to American society, but without doubt an oppressive force that still casts its long, dark shadow of inequality on our national legacy. Of course, anyone willing to read Howard Zinns A Peoples History of the United States would be hard-pressed to ignore the enduring hypocrisy that

98 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n demeans the value of the American Dream in the United States through its denial of personal freedoms and fair treatment of our own citizens. Zinn forces us to acknowledge the truth of our own inhumanity towards our own people, let alone others that we deemed to be against us, through the haunting voices of the articulate African Americans, Native Americans, women, war resisters, frontline soldiers, and poor laborers of all nationalities whom he directly quotes while recounting their stories, All, of course, thanks to the moral certitude of the selfserving few amongst us with great wealth and power coupled with the desire and drive to dominate others. Likewise, Oliver Stones 10-part documentary entitled The Untold History of the United States reveals the shadowy side of our American politics throughout the 20th century, one that is neither well-known nor easily accepted by most Americans. By reporting the behind the scenes events that went unreported at the time, Stone brings to light just how often we have arrogantly taken the wrong position in history relative to the betterment of humanity, and/or meddled in the affairs of other nations for our own exploitative purposes. In doing so, we not only unnecessarily destroyed the lives of other people all around the worldincluding many innocent men, women, and children, we have also betrayed our dream of being a peaceful nation dedicated to the advancement of freedom and democracy. In truth, many of our political leaders and corporate executives have appended our vision of world peace amongst a collection of democratic nations with the statement: as long as it serves our interests first. There are even cases of this duplicity in the American Dream clearly demonstrated through the actions and deeds of our greatest presidents, the very men who in many ways set the tone for who we are and what we value as a nation. Here are just three examples that bear out this point: First, in Thomas Jefferson, the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the man who carefully chose the words all men are created equal, we have a Founding Father who embodied this disconnect between the ideal and the reality of racial and gender equality by being both a slave owner at his Monticello plantation and the father of at least one child born of his intimate relationship with his slave mistress, Sally Hemings. Second, in Andrew Jackson, our seventh president and the first Washington outsider to occupy the White House, we have a beloved father figure with great compassion for his fellow countrymen and a powerful commitment to preserve and protect the Union at all costs, yet he was apparently

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 99 incapable of extending that care and concern to the Native Americans who he cajoled and forced from U.S. soil at great costs to the very lifeblood of these once proud people. Even during Jacksons presidency, the infamous Trail of Tears referred to their removal to the West and to the tremendous human suffering imposed upon the Choctaw, Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole nations. And third, we have Abraham Lincoln, likely the most beloved and revered president in our history, especially amongst African Americans who were taught their freedom was secured in 1863 by the Emancipation Proclamation because Lincoln deeply believed inand fought forthe equality of blacks in America. However, what many Americans did not know until recent years, and in many cases still do not, is that what we learned in public school growing up was somewhat misleading. The full story is a little less straight forward and goes like this: It is true that Lincoln believed slavery was evil for most of his life, and he deeply believed our Founding Fathers declaration that all men are created equal with no exceptions, under the law of the land. In an 1855 letter to a friend, Lincoln wrote: As a nation, we began by declaring that all men are created equal. We now practically read it all men are created equal, except negroes. When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics. When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving libertyto Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy. It is also true that Lincoln spent a significant portion of his life struggling with how to end slavery for personal and political reasons, though a belief that blacks and whites were racially equal was not one of them. Politically, Lincoln took the position that the federal government did not have the constitutional power to end slavery in existing states that had already established it within their domain, so his efforts prior to his presidency were concerned primarily with stopping new states from entering the union unless they were free territories; his hope was that if all new states were free, eventually the pressure would be too great on the South to sustain slavery in the future. Consistent with this stance, Lincoln did not intend to end slavery in the Southern

100 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n states as president and often said so both on and off the campaign trail for many years, even when running for Senate in 1858. In fact, for most of his political career, Lincoln tended to believe that if we freed American slaves, it would require colonization; in other words, we would need to explore ways to encourage them to emigrate back to Africa or elsewhere, since he could not imagine blacks living freely in America. This is because he personally believed the white race was superior to the black race, so he could not support the social and political equality of each; a belief, by the way, shared by most Americans and many statesmen of that period. On several occasions, Lincoln clearly stated that he was firmly against making voters or jurors of blacks, not to mention letting them hold office or intermarry with white people. Moreover, regarding the Emancipation Proclamation itself, the oftenobscured fact is that it actually did not free all slaves in the United States, just those that lived in states that were in rebellion. Many Americans do not realize that the border states in the civil war were also slave states; so, for example, when the proclamation took effect on January 1, 1863, if you lived as a slave in Kentuckywhere Lincolns in-laws happened to live as a prominent slave-owning familyyou remained a slave under the law. So why was it issued? For the most part, as cynical as it sounds, it was more for political expediency than moral idealism. Lincoln considered the southern succession a breach of the constitution, so he seized the opportunity to sidestep his previous interpretation of the limited powers of the federal government, and effectively struck a blow to the heart of the enemy from within its own culture and economic system; it didnt hurt that ending slavery also negated any chance there may have been of England recognizing the Confederacy as a legitimate nation, since the British had abolished slavery themselves at the turn of the 19th century. So the honest truth here is that Lincolns end game was winning the war and saving the union of North and South as the United States of America, not granting equal treatment and status to the black race. He is even quoted as saying to a friend about the Proclamation, It is my last card, and I will play it and I may win the trick. To be fair to Lincoln, moral integrity did play a role in his decision to enact the Emancipation Proclamation, only he based it on a promise to his god, not a commitment to the black race. While working on an early draft of the Proclamation, and in desperate need of a Union victory, Lincoln claims to have

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 101 made a promise toin his wordsmy Maker, that if the North defeated General Lee at the upcoming battle at Antietam, he would move forward with his intent to issue it. As it happened, on September 17, 1862, the first major battle on Northern soil ended up being the bloodiest single-day battle in American history, with about 23,000 casualties. Although some historians consider the military outcome inconclusive, Lees army did retreat to Virginia and, thus, Lincoln chose to count it as a victory for his cause. Two weeks later, Lincoln called his cabinet together to reveal his decision to make the final draft of the Proclamation effective January 1, 1863. It was at that time that Lincoln somewhat reluctantly confessed his sacred pledge, but then said with deep conviction, The rebel army is now driven out and I am going to keep that promise. As honorable as this may be, one also cannot help but wonder just what would have happened if the outcome of Antietam had been in Lees favor or if there was no faith in God in which to ground such a promise in the first place. There is little doubt that Lincoln was instrumental in moving the country towards the abolition of slavery through his words, deeds, and personal convictions, and it was under his presidency that the 13th Amendment passed Congress. Therefore, it is fair that we affectionately remember him as the Great Emancipator, even though it wasnt until Georgia ratified the 13th Amendment in December 1865eight months after Lincolns assassinationthat we made all slavery within the borders of the United States unconstitutional and, forever more, illegal. As depicted in Stephen Spielbergs Oscar-nominated film Lincoln, however, the process of ratification was anything but smooth and easy; to the contrary, it was an ugly clash of differing human values and ideals. Moreover, as we soon found out as a nation, ending slavery and treating blacks as equals were two very different battles to be fought within our borders, each with its own horrors and disgraces, and each with its own heroes and heroines who eventually brought victory closer to the side of true freedom and equality in America. As with most historical figures, Jefferson, Jackson, and Lincoln were very complex characters and, like all of us, imperfect humans who lived in a state of being where our better angels and lesser demons often struggle to win over our hearts and minds. And like us, very often the winner of one moral battle or another varies over time and under different circumstances; in Lincolns case, his better angels fighting for the true equality of the black race on American soil were gaining a stronghold on his conscience towards the end of the civil war and just

102 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n before that ill-fated Good Friday that eventually immortalized him as The Great Emancipator for all times. So while the flagrant hypocrisy of these presidents reflects a clear inconsistency between the idealistic worldview that all human beings are equal in nature and their day-to-day moral behavior and ethical judgment, it does not devalue their many contributions towards advancing the cause of the American Dream. Thankfully, flawed humans are very capable of achieving great things in life for the common good in spite of their inescapable faults and foibles. In many ways that we should be grateful for as a nation, each of these menand many more men and women before and since themdid just that given their tried and true patriotism.

F ACING THE C HALLENGES B EFORE U S

As we head into the 21st century, America is obviously a radically different country then it was in the late 1700s, with over three hundred million citizens now representing a much broader spectrum of human race and cultural diversity. With our collective identity strained far beyond what our early compatriots could ever have imagined, and although we have significantly advanced equality and justice amongst our people through womans suffrage and the civil rights movement in the 20th century, we find ourselves continuing the relentless struggle to further perfect our union and to realize the sacred and cherished dream of a nation of free and fulfilled human beings. This is true on the economic front as well, where the gap between our classes is continuing to grow as the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and the middle class struggles to advance as lucrative opportunities wither in the marketplace and political power remains firmly under the influence of wealthy corporations and individuals, alike (a.k.a., the American oligarchy). In fact, there is evidence to suggest that when it comes to our childrens ability to climb the ladder of financial success through hard work regardless of social status or circumstance of birthone measure of the achieving freedom and opportunity known as intergenerational income mobilitywe as a community of largely Christian capitalists are not doing nearly as well as other countries with differing cultural values and socioeconomic systems. In October 2010, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reported that, It is easier to climb the social ladder and earn more than ones parents in the Nordic countries, Australia and Canada than in France, Italy, Britain and the United States.

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 103 Americans, therefore, may take pride in claiming that we are the Land of Opportunity, but a little bit of humility requires us to recognize that, to some extent, the American Dream is more alive and well in some other countries than in our own. We may have inspired each of them in our brazen youth to head towards the goal of equal opportunity for all, but along the way, we seem to have gotten too mired in our own erratic cycles of boom/bust economies to notice that they passed us by in delivering on the hope and promise we claim to so freely offer. We seem to be stuck in the ignorance that what capitalistic ingenuity gives to our economy, capitalistic greed takes from the lower classes and gives to the higher. An economic system that generates new wealth is critical to the financial wellbeing of everyone, but one that allows unfettered poweror more likely the faade of regulated powerto create national instability through how that wealth is distributed prohibits far too many honest and worthy citizens from their right to pursue the American Dream on American soil. Case in point: there have been two times in American history that the highest percentage of wealth in America has been concentrated in the fewest number of Americansin 1928 and 2008, just prior to, and likely precipitating, the Great Depression and the Great Recession, respectively. The lesson we ought to have learned by now is that the free market does not trump social justice or national security; corporations and businesses have a responsibility to their customers and their country to follow rules and regulations that protect both from threats to our wellbeing. When a few corporations get so large that allowing them to failas true free market capitalism would dictatewould result in a second Great Depression or worse, then reason dictates we prohibit such things from happening. Sorry if that means the CEO will only make $15 million in bonuses, and not $25 million, but the Constitution does not guarantee his or her right to unlimited wealth. Shareholder rights also do not trump the rights of individual Americans whose pursuit of the American Dream suffers the consequences when Big Industrys insatiable thirst for power and wealth brings our economy to its knees. And yet, as of this publishing date, nothing of any real significance has been done to change the way we do business and, thus, we are still letting corporate executives get away with crimes unpunished because they are too important to our financial stability. Well, so much for the notion that crime doesnt pay.

104 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Even with these past and current transgressions duly noted, for many Americans, the current state of our liberal democracy realized in pursuit of our vision of the American Dreamwith past and present failures and shortcomings aside, as dreadful and shameful as many areis a magnificent achievement and quite possibly the crowning feat of humanity to date. When taking in the full scope of what it means to be a human being living in this vast and apparently accidental universe, there is a fair amount of truth in this perspective. Putting aside how well we are doing relative to other countries in social mobility and equal opportunity, however, the other reality we must face square on is the fact that, given who one is, where one lives, and what effect American domestic laws and international policies have on oneself and ones community, many humansincluding American citizensquestion our sincere commitment to freedom and democracy. For these people, America, itself, plays the role of the tyrannical oppressor against whom it so proudly claims to stand. Here, again, for those without their head buried deep in the sand of patriotic fervor, there is truth to acknowledge in this broader and more empathetic perspective of our impact on the world that we share with our fellow human beings. Yet, being critical does not necessitate being unpatriotic; in fact, as many Americans see it, being realistic about who we are and how well we are faring in promoting the American Dream at home and abroad is a patriotic act requiring great courage to stand up to those unwilling to face the tough challenges before us. As we enter a new millennium, we must recognize, therefore, that how we respond to the challenges that we are facing is not only critical to the general welfare of those of us living in America, but of most of the worlds population at large. As such, we are at a decisive crossroad in our quest to become, stay as, or return to being a great nation, depending on your perspective of the current state of our union. In all cases, the goal is the same: to be an exemplar leader amongst the worlds communities in how to respect and protect freedom, how to foster peace and prosperity through equal opportunity, and how to promote and provide for the wellbeing of ones people. We have a clear choice before us over the next century to either continue on to greater heights in shaping the annals of history and bringing positive, effective change to America and the global community, or to potentially head down a path that could destroy most of what has been built upon the hopes and dreamsnot to mention blood, sweat, and tearsof our Founding Fathers and

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 105 many generations since them, and take many other nations down with us. Our current state of greatness as a nation may be up for debate, but the certainty of our future greatness is within our grasp, if we choose to pursue making the American Dream a reality for as many people as possible at whatever cost it takes, here and now in present day America. This is certainly no easy task; in fact, to guide us in the right direction and progress towards the most broad reaching and beneficial ways to protect freedom and create equal opportunity in all aspects of American life, we must first reconsider the vision of the America Dream meant to illuminate our path. For as we look around us in these troubled times in the United States, and as we peer into our not-so-distant future, there are many dark clouds of fear and distrust gathering on the left and right, and violent storms of mutual hatred brewing all around us, arousing ominous feelings of misfortune and generating serious threats to our safe passage toward a better tomorrow. At the source of this homegrown turbulence is a common passion, a deep sense of what it means to be an American, what it means to be a Patriot, and what it means to put our country first. Unfortunately, the same passion lights the fuel for liberals and conservatives, alike, creating an unstable political environment that ends up more enmeshed in the passion than in the real issues at hand. The result is a highly dysfunctional government and equally ineffective political system. Then theres the angry and deeply frustrated electorate that seems eager to blame everyone but themselves for the problems at hand in an endless standoff of Im right, youre wrong attitudes.

R ALLYING A ROUND T HE F LAG OF B ROTHERLY L OVE

In light of the challenges before us, then, we need to ask whether or not the two main values of the American Dreamliberty and justiceare enough to guide us through the tough times ahead. Can these values alone protect us through the turmoil and guide us to the higher ground, which we seek? Given the psychological and bodily combat already suffered amongst our people in our devastating civil war, currently divisive culture war, and always demeaning class wars, can we find a way to overcome our deeply felt differences in American politics, religion, and economics to rally together only around the idea of fighting for freedom and justice?

106 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Upon deeper reflection, it seems we must seek the hope, motivation, and sense of unity we need to move forward in a more fundamental value alluded to in the words of Robert F. Kennedy, spoken in the immediate wake of Martin Luther Kings hate-filled assassination and the not-so-distant turbulence of his own brothers unjust murder. For when he challenged America by asserting, Surely we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again, the flag he is waving is not one of freedom and equality, but one of brotherly love. The fact that Kennedys insightful speech on the mindless menace of violence still rings true in America a decade into the 21st century speaks to a disheartening lack of progress over the past half century in dealing with many of our most destructive sociopolitical challenges, all the while the rhetoric of liberty and justice has been alive and well, but not very uniting. In truth, weve been at this nearly two hundred and fifty years and we still find ourselves mired in many of the same political, economic, and cultural battles from generation to generation, dating back to the 18th century. This is particularly true in regards to the clashes between ideological belief and scientific evidence that riddle the landscape of lawmaking, economic policy, and public education. Likewise, for the conflicting claims to moral authority and absolute truth that various segments of our society arrogantly make in regards to such issues as abortion, gay rights, and capital punishment. Such quarrels are quick to rile the passions that flame the loathing of one side for the other, and hence we perpetuate a wall of separation between each other and between where we are today and where we want to be tomorrow as a nation. It is reasonable, then, to suggest that striving for freedom and equality alone has not and will not be enough to keep the American Dream alive and well, particularly in the current face of the unprecedented threats to our wellbeing and the wellbeing of our friends and allies. From the destructive reality of selfrighteous authoritarian power to weapons of mass destruction to the fomenting of violent and irrational hatred in the name of God, there are plenty of opportunities for us, for our neighbors, and for our mutual enemies to make a real mess of this human presence on Earth. As such, whatever that missing ingredient to the American dream is, it must be something that will allow us to bring a peaceful end

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 107 to the disruptive war of values and beliefs that we wage with each other and the world around us. From a planetary perspective, the most critical and alarming observation we can make about the health of our species and our chances for survival at this time is this: the current high-tech world we live in and co-create every day continues to progress towards greater complexity in all aspects of human lifepersonal and social, alikesparking an increasing number of highly divisive and often disturbing cultural clashes that bring to light our conflicting customs, values, and morals. Indeed as pointed out in the last entry on Wikipedia for the Transition to Civilization section of the article, Human, as posted on March 1, 2013which I note because in some sense it represents some level of agreement about our current predicament amongst ourselveswith the advent of the Information Age at the end of the 20th century, we now partake in an increasingly globalized and interconnected web of social interaction and mutual interdependence. The good news here is that this interconnection between humans has encouraged the growth of science, art, discussion, and technology, which in turn has improved the quality of living as a human on Earth for most of us residing in well-developed countries. The increase in average human life span over the past century alone from less than fifty years to more than seventy-five for those who are fortunate enough to benefit from our advancements is an easy example, but so are many of the comforts and conveniences that we take for granted each day. However, the bad news is that human civilization has also led to culture clashes and the development and use of weapons of mass destruction, as well as environmental destruction and pollution significantly contributing to the ongoing mass extinction of other forms of life called the holocene extinction event, which may be further accelerated by global warming in the future. The ultimate concern, of course, is not the fact that the inevitable expansion of the sun will eventually heat up the Earth to the point that the potential for large animal life will cease to existwhich some scientists calculate will happen in about 500 million years, but rather that we may cause our own premature extinction at the hands of our own ignorance in the not-so-distant future. With a half billion years ahead of usassuming a rogue asteroid doesnt take us out firstit sure seems like a literal waste of time to only make it for a few more millennia or centuries or even, if we are honest about it, potentially only a few more decades.

108 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n But, catastrophic destruction of our environment asidewhether manmade or not, amidst the countless culture battles raging all around the world at any given moment, there is a more immediate threat to our ability to thrive and survive as a global community. Indeed, the often obscuredbut critically importantcommon bonds and mutual values that unite us as human beings are being significantly stressed and strained, if not downright shredded to pieces. A simple case in point is how after 9/11 many Americans generalized the kill all infidels mentality of the radical Islamist to all Muslim adherents; the fact that most Muslims do not share this interpretation of the Quran does not matter. The fact that most Muslims are more concerned about paying their rent, raising their children, providing food and healthcare for their family, and generally trying to be happy than they are about how they can kill themselves an American infidel is flat out ignored and not even up for debate. The bottom line for people with this mindset is that they are not like us; they are the enemy, a Muslim, an Arab, or a rag head. It really doesnt matter what you call other people in the end, as long as they are less important and less valuable than we are, there is no moral obligation between them and us. The hard truth in this light is that in order for us to counteract this undertow of dehumanization at home and abroad, we need more than a constitution-based liberal democracy to steer us through the troubled waters in which we find ourselves. Frankly, as RFK beckoned us, we must rebuild our sense of unity and community through a genuine awakening of brotherly love. That is to say, we need to evolve to a higher level of consciousness and a broader range of compassionate living as individuals and as a society, and quickly at that. We must reign in the destructive aspects of our human existence that are gaining momentum in the emerging world order with help, no less, from the scientific and economic achievements of the past century. In particular, we must counteract the rising sense of alienation and separation that leads to interspecies violence in all its viscous forms, from psychological abuse and personal crime to social turmoil and international war. The ultimate victim of the fear, anger, and hatred that has run amok under the guise of us vs. them religion, science, and politics in the United States throughout our history, especially since the events of September 11, 2001, is the very health of the American Dream. With every death as a result of war, with every killing spree at one of our schools, universities, shopping malls, and movie

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 109 theaters, with every form of physical, emotional, and mental abuse that occurs daily in dysfunctional families and relationships of every race, religion, political persuasion and social status in America, the right to live a free and happy life suffers dearly. After all, its rather hard to live a fulfilled life if you are neither safe nor secure or if your essential needs for living are not met, let alone if you are dead well before your natural time thanks to unfortunate circumstances beyond your control. Just ask the families of those victims who had their lives cut short thanks to a human driving drunk, illegally using a gun, or sexually abusing another, not to mention thanks to a losing battle against such inner demons as anemic self-worth, destructive addiction, and existential despair.

R ESTORING H OPE IN THE A MERICAN D REAM

But heres the rub: even with the challenges to the American Dream posed by the evil dimension of human existencethat is, the tendency toward oppressive and unjust treatment of others for the advancement of oneself, there are many living within our borders who are both significantly free and prosperous, and who are able to avoid a great deal of disruptive violence in their life, yet are not truly fulfilled, deeply content, or spiritually satisfied with who they are or what they have achieved. Surely, you are familiar with such people, possibly counted yourself as one of them. Why is this? Why has the American Dream as pursued for the past several centuries on our own hallowed ground of liberal democracy failed to more fully realize the hope of no more suffering and the promise of a happy life for so many? Surprising to some, we find the reason inof all placesa 2008 episode of Jeopardy, a well-known TV game show for facts and trivia, but not necessarily for profundity. During one of the Teen Tournament contests that year, the correct question for the given answer should have been, What is love?; however, the contestant mistakenly asked, What is happiness?, to which Alex Trebek quipped something along the lines of, Well, without love, you cant be happy. So simply stated, yet so profoundly true; in fact, from the highest states of spiritual experience to the deepest insights of modern psychology, we find no wiser statement about the human condition. In short, when we love others, we are empathetic to their joy and their sorrow, and in turn, desire to either share their pleasure or relieve their pain and thus act in compassionate ways. When others love us, we are recipients of

110 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n that compassion, and usually find deep fulfillment and transcendence in the sharing of both our happiness and our suffering, particularly when doing so leads to authentic emotional healing. This existential truth brings to light the inherent flaw in the vision of the American Dream discussed so far: the two words and concepts that are noticeably absent from any of the formal expression or documentation are love and compassion. The heart of every higher state of consciousness, and the soul of every respectable state of being, are missing-in-action from the traditional vision of the American Dream. The conclusion that stares us in the face, then, is that if we as a nation intend to further perfect our union and realize the true peace, prosperity, and personal fulfillment that remain just beyond our grasp, we must revision the American Dream to embrace the virtue of compassion side-by-side with liberty and justice. Not only is it necessary to protect our freedoms and to treat our fellow citizens as equals in the eyes of the law, we must also love each other as fellow human beings and relate to each other and our human brothers and sisters around the world with genuine love and respect. And, as we shall see, one way to feel a global sense of compassion is to recognize the shared value of human divinity in ourselves and in others, if not in everything thing around us in the natural universe. Returning to the words of Senator Kennedy, we encounter a similar plea to America on June 4, 1968, at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles where he had just won Californias Democratic presidential primary. Just moments before his own assassination, he humbly and sincerely made the following statement to his stirred supporters: What I think is quite clear, is that we can work together in the last analysis and that what has being going on in the United States over the period of the past three yearsthe divisions, the violence, the disenchantment with our society, the divisions whether its between blacks and whites, between the poor and the more affluent or between age groups or on the war on Vietnamthat we can start to work together. We are a great country and a selfless country and a compassionate country. In truth, not only has such internal strife been a persistent reality since our very birth as a nation, but the divisions, violence, and disenchant are certainly alive and well today, if not even deeper, stronger, and more troublesome than in decades

O u r S t a t e o f U n i o n | 111 past. What is more important to realize, again, is that, as both RFKs life and words convincingly demonstrate, the mindlessand, equally heartlessviolence that threatens to tear us apart as a nation is rooted in the perceived alienation and separation from our fellow citizens and from our human brothers and sisters. More so, we would be wise to recognize that the solution to our state of discord and discontent is to rely on our innate capacity for empathy and compassion. For it is in our hearts and minds that we can find the courage to overcome the fear and hatred that breeds destructive violence at home and abroad, and to establish a strong state of union grounded in our common nature as evolving human beings. In doing so, we also find a way to honor the memory of Senator Kennedy and all the other selfless patriots who have given their life in service of our country while fighting for liberty and justice with deep love and compassion for all. It is equally important to recognize that the current exile of compassion from the American Dream is the direct result of paying lip service to our status as divinely ordained beings, rather than fully comprehending and living life according to our divine nature. This is true because the real consequence of the devaluation of our innate worth is that our culture is failing to nurture the development and growth of compassionate adults in measurable ways. Consider, for example, a 2010 study that revealed college students at that time scored 40 percent lower on a measure of empathy than their counterparts who lived 20 and 30 years ago. Add to that the fact that while American students lag many other countries in academic achievement, they lead the world in their level of selfconfidence. In January 2013, the American Freshman Survey, which is published yearly by the Higher Education Research Institution at UCLA, reported that the average college student thinks he possesses above average intelligence, drive, and leadership qualities, and that narcissism among young people is currently at a 50year high. In our highly competitive culture that preaches individual success and promotes a me first mentality, it's not surprising that such emphasis on the ego is accompanied by a corresponding overvaluation of oneself and devaluation of others. We are, in many ways, encouraging a culture and society of narcissists and, in some extreme cases, sociopaths and psychopaths. The recent popularity amongst many Americans of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged and other works promoting an ethic based only on what is good for the individual, even at the expense of others, is one easy example to cite here. Rands objectivist philosophy

112 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n reverses the moral poles making compassion an evil vice and narcissism an honorable virtue. In short, Rands version of the Pledge of Allegiance simply reads, one nation, with liberty for all. No god, no common unity of compatriots, no justice for the victims of capitalism, and no compassion for thy neighbor; just rational self-interest and a capitalist market free of rules and regulations that put a cap on wealth accumulation. Free to be greedy, is their battle cry in the political arena, where they stand up for what they believe to be their constitutional right. So is the vision of the American Dream for this segment of our society. There are also similar views strongly held by many other freedom-first flag flyers that suggest the rugged individualism that pervades nearly every aspect of American life, when taken to extremes, is a detriment to us becoming a unified country of authentically compassionate compatriots. However, when we accept human divinity as the fundamental truth of our existence, we establish a sense of self-worth that is neither egocentric nor selfserving, but rather one of authentic self-esteem and mutual respect towards others. When we truly understand the emotional, psychological, and social nature of our being, we realize that when we seek true peace and happiness in this life here and now on Planet Earth, the wisdom of our ancestors and the facts of our science point us toward a life of selfless love and universal compassion. And it is through such moral behavior that we can improve both our own wellbeing, and the wellbeing of our fellow citizens; indeed, we can promote the General Welfare of our nation. But to do so, we must unite our country around the flag of brotherly love by embracing a 21st century vision of the American Dream that calls for more compassion in all aspects of American life. We must share a vision of what we are as human beings, who we are as a nation, and where we should direct our future as we struggle to realize our most cherished values and lofty goals. In doing so, we can restore hope to all who are battle weary and disheartened by our current state of affairs, provide relief to many from the bondage of suffering that still exists in all its many forms, and revive faith and trust in the promise of equality and opportunity for every man, woman, and child living on American soil, regardless of the circumstances of their birth.

Compassion is a profound human emotion prompted by the pain of others. More vigorous than empathy, the feeling commonly gives rise to an active desire to alleviate another's suffering. It is often, though not inevitably, the key component in what manifests in the social context as altruism. In ethical terms, the various expressions down the ages of the so-called Golden Rule embody by implication the principle of compassion: Do to others as you would have done to you. Ranked a great virtue in numerous philosophies, compassion is considered in all the major religious traditions as among the greatest of virtues. Wikipedia contributors, "Compassion," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, (accessed December 7, 2008) ~ Compassion is the ultimate and most meaningful embodiment of emotional maturity. It is through compassion that a person achieves the highest peak and deepest reach in his or her search for self-fulfillment. Arthur Jersild
American Developmental Psychologist

~ Compassion is not sentiment but is making justice and doing works of mercy. Compassion is not a moral commandment but a flow and overflow of the fullest human and divine energies. Matthew Fox
American Christian

~ Compassion is a transforming quality of heart we cultivate, nurture, and refine. It is rediscovered through the falling away of the layers of fear, resistance, and anxiety that have the power to veil the innately compassionate heart. Our challenge may not be so much one of becoming more compassionate, but one of learning to let go of the clouds of confusion that obscure the powerful compassion within us. Christina Feldman
American Buddhist

A Call for Compassion

IMAGINE, IF YOU WILL, THE TRUE STORY of an adult human female stricken with
an excruciating bone disorder triggered by an overdose of vitamin A from eating too much liver in her diet. Unable to walk or barely move as her muscles ripped the connecting fibrous tissue from her bones and the resulting blood clots ossified into deformed skeleton around the limbs, her only hope for survival was to have another empathize with her suffering and offer assistance with the most basic of needs such as food, water, and shelter. What she needed was compassion, and fortunate for her, she got it, about 1.7 million years ago. You see, her name is KNMER 1808, or 1808 for short. A member of the human species we call Homo erectus, or upright man, 1808 lived on the African savannah near the largest desert lake in the world, Lake Turkana in the far north of Kenya, where her fossilized remains were eventually discovered. (KNM-ER stands for Kenya National Museum-East Rudolph, since Lake Rudolph was the previous name for Lake Turkana). Her ailment, diagnosed as hypervitaminosis A, quickly leads to death if the patient is not cared for, and in such cases, there is typically not enough time for heavy ossification of the blood clots to occur. The fact that there was a half inch of woven bone around her limbs suggests that her life was prolonged thanks to members of her social group who evidently cared for her wellbeing. In short, she survived an early death at the hands of Natural Selection because, in some human sense, she was loved. Lest you think this is an archeological fluke, consider that 1808 is not the only fossil from nearly two million years ago to provide such evidence for compassionate behavior in our early human ancestors. In 2005, the journal Nature reported that in the Republic of Georgia, the skull and jawbone from a hominid male, also dating back to around 1.7 million years ago, suggests that he spent the last years of his life with only one tooth. Since the tooth sockets had been resorbed into the skull, it is likely that he had lost his other teeth several years before dying,

116 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n leaving him dependent on the kindness of others. In order to survive without the ability to bite or chew meat, other members of the family or community would need to gather and process soft foods for him to eat, such as bone marrow, brain matter, and a selection of palatable plants. While this could have been done alone, scientists posit that other individuals may have cared for him given his advanced age or illness, either of which could have been responsible for his loss of teeth. The same line of scientific reasoning applies to fossil records of the more recent human species Homo neanderthalensis, named for the Neander Valley in Germany where their remains were first uncovered. Commonly known as Neanderthals, these close biological relatives lived mostly in Europe and parts of Asia from around 350,000 years ago up until around 30,000 years ago. It appears they also aided and extended the lives of their own severely incapacitated kin through some form of compassionate behavior. Their concern for the old and sick amongst their clan may have permitted Neanderthals to live longer than any of their predecessors, and as one scientist observed about this display of empathy and compassion, it is the most recognizably human aspect of their behavior that can be directly inferred from the archeological record.

A N ATURAL I NSTINCT
These glimpses into our pre-cultural human ancestry strongly suggest that compassion for others is as natural to being human as the fearful, selfish behavior that tends to dominate the spotlight in the drama of human evolution. Biology, not culture, empowers us to care for others beyond our immediate circle of concern; culture, as it turns out, can regulate that behavior, but it does not enable it. Within the past few decades, empirical disciplines such as evolutionary biology, neuroscience, developmental psychology, and ethology have begun to confirm and clarify this insight into our human nature. Indeed, there are now a growing number of books available on science and spirituality that coherently argue rather convincingly for the encouraging evidence of our yet unrealized human potential for more compassionate living as individuals, as communities, and as a human race. The authors of these books report on very recent studies since around 2000that use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to map neural activity of subjects under controlled conditions. Whereas MRI data produces a static image of the electrical state of the brain at any given moment,

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 117 the advantage of fMRI is that is turns that image into a revealing video of continuous neural processing. What the data from this research conclusively demonstrates is that our brains are hardwired for empathy and compassion just as much as, if not more than, for self-preservation, sexual reproduction, social status and other such genetically encoded behavior. Natural selection did program us solely to act in self-serving ways that increase the likelihood of replicating our own genes in future generations. To the contrary, part of our designed fitness for survival is that as social beings, we are also inclined to act for the benefit of others, quite often to relieve their suffering, and on occasion at the risk of our own life. That is, we have evolved the ability to transcend our own deeply encoded predisposition for egocentric behavior and to act in selfless and self-sacrificing ways. The motivation to act compassionately begins when we sufficiently empathize with the experience of another person, which most of us are capable of doing with little conscious effort, thanks to our evolved talents in mental and emotional cognition. We can observe our natural empathy at work any time we put a crying baby next to one that is not. Within moments, we will soon have two crying babies as the calm child internalizes the distress of the other. She does not cry because she dislikes the sound of the other baby crying, but because her brain circuitry effectively translates the expressions and behavior of another to feel the same emotions. Her brain literally reflects the identical neural activities of the other baby by utilizing specialized nerve cells for mimicking human emotion and behavior called mirror neurons. Eventually, around the age of fourteen months, a young toddler still tends to cry, but will also try to make the crying baby feel better; from there, the older the toddler gets, the less she cries and the more she tries to help. The reason she begins to cry less and eventually not at all is that her brain develops the ability to limit the intensity and response to the empathetic experience. She still feels the babys distress by processing the babys expression and behavior, but the mirrored emotions of another no longer overwhelms the older toddlers brain, as a higher cognitive understanding of the situation at hand tempers the associated response of crying. Part of that awareness is the recognition for the need of relief from suffering accompanied by a desire to provide that comfort for this other human being. In Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationship, Daniel Goleman reviews a growing numbers of experiments that further demonstrate our

118 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n natural instinct for empathy and compassion. As he reports it, the recent fMRI data has led many neuroscientists to conclude that our brains evolved to interact with each other on a non-rational, non-verbal emotional level in very subtle and powerful ways by using mirror neurons and other data processing mechanisms. In this sense, positive and negative moods are as contagious as the common cold; indeed, our emotions have a measureable biological impact on our health by stimulating our nervous systems and affecting our hormones, heart rate, circulation, breathing and the immune system. Not only does this have implications for how we relate with others out of concern for our own health (for example, we should avoid toxic people), but it also suggests that we need to take personal responsibility for the quality of emotional experiences that we inflict on others. As noted by Michael Gazzaniga in The Ethical Brain, this innate capacity to be empathetic with another is not limited to humans. After reporting on experiments with monkeys that show the same type of mirror neurons at work when mimicking the behavior of self and others directed at the same goal whether the other is a monkey or man, Gazzaniga comments, The exciting idea here is that even in subhuman primates a mechanism exists to mirror, to appreciate, to feel the goals being attempted by others, including members of other species. In turn, consistent with Golemans observations, he suggests the current research and theories emerging out of this discovery support the notion that we are naturally empathetic beings who interact with others on many unconscious and subconscious levels. He summarizes this view as follows: We actually simulate [other peoples] states of mind by activating our own emotional brain systems in the way we imagine theirs are activated. Through those feelings in ourselves, we understand the feelings of others. We are reading their minds and body language. Indeed, we must read the minds of other if our social system is to work. Furthermore, near the end of the book, Gazzaniga reviews the empathy-altruism hypothesis, which attempts to explain our pro-social behavior when we observe another human being in distress. The theory holds that when we observe agony and anguish in others, we automatically and unconsciously simulate that same experience in our minds, which in turn, literally makes us feel bad. Infected by the other persons feelings, we act to alleviate this suffering in ourselves by alleviating it in the other person. Referring to the abundance of scientific studies on the

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 119 matter, Gazzaniga reaches the conclusion that, This tendency to react to the distress of other appears to be innate. Just to drive the point home, in The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are, Robert Wright notes that thanks in part to the insights gained through evolutionary biology, Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justice; all of these thingsthe things that hold society togethercan now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis. Yet, as we have already discussed, having the ability and predisposition to behave socially in a certain way does not mean that we do. Just as in the case that although we all have arm muscles generically encoded in our DNA, few of us can curl a 50 lb. dumbbell with ease, if at all. Likewise with our empathy and compassion: while we are born with the capacity and mechanisms to feel empathy and live compassionately, few of us can muster the strength to overcome much of the other selfish demands placed on us by the realities of daily living. More so, the lack of their own proper love and care during their formative years as infants and children, and thus are incapable of empathetic and compassionate behavior profoundly disables many people emotionally, mentally, and spiritually; a grave matter of concern to which we will return in a Chapter 7. To see how this understanding of human nature affects our view of moral behavior, consider two men who watch as a strangers young infant falls helplessly into the deep end of a swimming pool. Upon feeling the impulse to help, the first mans thoughts immediately go to the fact that he cant swim and so fears trying to save the baby would risk his own life; hence he does nothing but look to the other man who is already in mid-dive into the pool. The second man had instantly equated drowning baby with save baby at a pre-rational level and so dove in to the rescue without hesitation. The perspective that tends to pervade our popular understanding of human evolution suggests the first man reacted according to his predominant instinct for self-preservation, while the second responded based on some internalized cultural value placed on human life, or some extension of the parental instinct to care for ones offspring. Even the theory of kin selection that is propounded by evolutionary biologists tends to explain away risking ones life for the benefit of others as self-serving behavior since the unconscious biological intent is to advance the likelihood that ones genetic material will be passed through the future generations of close relatives. Moreover, in such cases where the person in need of help is not a relative, evolutionary biologists might call upon the equally

120 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n evolved moral inclination toward reciprocal altruism as an explanation, where it is biologically beneficial to make some level of sacrifice for another if the he reciprocates the favor at some point and time in the future. However, in light of what we now know about human empathy and compassion, it is equally plausible that the hero simply followed his innate instinct for altruistic behavior, and the man who saved himself first rationalized himself out of what he instinctually knew he should dosave the baby. In The Ethical Brain, Gazzaniga suggests the evolutionary theory behind this view of human nature postulates the neural structures that tie altruistic instincts to emotions may have been selected for over time, because helping people immediately is beneficial. Thanks to our evolved gut instinct, we live with cognitive processes that allow for quick moral decision-making, which, in turn, increases our likelihood of survival. For as Gazzaniga states it, if we are wired to save a guy right in front of us, we all survive better. What we observe in human nature, then, is that while humans can certainly ignore someone needing aidand often dosuch cold-heartedness is not an highly evolved trait of selfish behavior, but rather a suppression of a higher cognitive impulse to feel with and then to assist another member of our species in distress. Although the neural structure of our early reptilian brain encodes our survival strategies, our more recently evolved mammalian brain is not a slave to those base instincts. Rather, it incorporates them into a more holistic experience of complex behaviors that transcend the limits of primitive fight or flight responses, which evolved serve our instinct for self-preservation first. This might explain why most of our true heroes in situations like the one considered here will tell us that there was nothing supernatural or extraordinary about what they did; they simply reacted upon their gut instinct to help another person, which all of us are capable of doing, that is, if we dont stand in our own way. In the end, although there continues to be some debate as to the evolutionary mechanisms involved, it seems clear that Natural Selection endowed our species with the moral capacity and spiritual drive to live a compassionate life through various modes of altruistic behavior rooted in our capacity for empathy.

A LTRUISM AND THE R ISE OF C IVILIZATION

It is no surprise that with the emergence of human civilization, we find the evidence of altruistic behavior to be ubiquitous amongst all of our cultures. For example, the recorded history of our rapid social and cultural evolution over the

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 121 past 6,000 years reveals a long lineage of courageous men and women of every race and creed who have stood up against the injustice imposed upon their brethren by those who pursue power and wealth at all costs. Indeed, the most influential of these visionaries, those revered spiritual leaders who inspire many of our vibrant religious traditionssome more legendary than historical, especially the farther back in time you gowere deeply concerned about the welfare of their people. Krishna (Hinduism), Moses (Judaism), Jesus (Christianity), Mohammed (Islam), Confucius (Confucianism), Lao Tzu (Taoism), Guru Nanak (Sikhism), and Siddhartha Gautama (Buddhism) to name a feweach devoted their life to offering their community a much needed source of hope in their struggle to survive against the inhospitable forces of the world. They did so by sharing an inspirational vision of reality nuanced by their own particular cultural milieu and personal insights, and usually by modeling a way of being a moral, compassionate, and spiritually awakened human; that is, they demonstrated a loving lifestyle that showed others the way to do the same. This is literally true regarding the community of Jews and pagans formed during the first century C.E. who proclaimed to follow The Way, that is, the teachings and way of being that Jesus modeled for others through his own life and death. Likewise, the Taothe True Nature of the universe with which one should harmonize ones life and about which Lao Tzu wrote so elegantly and profoundly in the Tao Te Chingis also understood to be The Way. Today, all around the globe, brave men and women of every faith traditionthat is, a way of being in which a community of believers place their trust for a better lifecontinue to work towards alleviating the suffering of their extended family of brothers and sisters. In most cases, this involves challenging the failure of the powers that bewhether a dictatorship, democracy, or other form of governmentto effectively care for the wellbeing of its people. The final measure of success for these bold individualsof both antiquity and the modern ageeventually comes down to whether they change the world for the better in some demonstrable way or not. Typically, by change the world for the better we imply that in some way there is less suffering and more peace and prosperity for their community of concern thanks to their compassionate efforts. As we have witnessed over the past several millennia, however, such success is difficult to achieve since the will to relieve human suffering en masse and the required radical social change to make it happen do not come easy, and when they

122 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n do, it is usually at a great price, especially when it is at the expense of the ruling class or an authoritarian state. History makes it clear that the greed and hubris of the rich and powerful do not surrender their tyranny without a formidable fight. On the other hand, many of those who do succeed, and who selflessly make tremendous personal sacrifices for the good of others, eventually become the legendary prophets, martyrs, saints, and heroes of our worlds diverse cultures. Clearly, as a species we tend to honor and revere the most compassionate amongst us, and the larger ones circle of concern and sphere of influence, the greater the respect and glory we bestow upon that person. In recent times, we see this worldwide recognition of greatness in such compassionate humans as Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Desmond Tutu, Nelson Mandela, Agnes Bojaxhiu (Mother Teresa), Karol Wojtya (Pope John Paul II), and Tenzin Gyatso (The 14th and current Dalai Lama), even with their personal imperfections duly noted. So not only do we have a strong case to posit that we are by nature equipped with the capacity to be selfless, compassionate beings, but also to suggest that we recognize the embodiment of such virtues as the highest expression of our human potential. Hence, Arthur Jersild speaks of compassion as achieving the highest peak and deepest reach in [ones] search for selffulfillment, and Matthew Fox asserts compassion is the overflow of the fullest human and divine energies. Why this is so in a universe that can be viewed by many as brutally uncaring and indifferent, and to some inherently meaningless, is quite odd, to say the least, unless theres a bigger picture not being seen through ones focus on what is objectively out there as opposed to what is revealed to us through our subjective experience, as we shall see. Of course, not everyone who takes on the dehumanizing powers that plague the evolution of our species becomes a legendary hero amongst his or her people for their valiant effort, or influences such cultural transformations as the institutionalization of a new religion. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the prevailing and persistent actions of these altruistic men and women reveal that the awakened human spirit will not rest while any form of tyranny and exploitation unjustly and inhumanely subjugates any member of the human race. When our innate ability to understand and empathize with our fellow human beings is properly nurtured and developed, we awaken the capacity to love and to care for a wider and wider circle of othersfrom family to community to country to planet. Indeed, if we choose to listen to our hearts and sharpen our ability to empathize with others, we can become motivated to relieve the needless suffering of our human brothers and

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 123 sisters, wherever and whenever possible. This is not a proclamation of faith by some religious doctrine or political agenda, but simply a reality substantiated by the empirical evidence of modern science, human history, and a wide range of spiritual practices. As Cristina Feldman so poetically expressed this insight, we discover our compassionate heart by piercing the clouds of confusion created, in part, by our very natural emotions of fear, resistance, and anxiety. However, its important to recognize that each of these human traits has evolved to serve the egos psychological and biological needs in its struggle to survive; they are, therefore, just as beneficial and critical to our lives as rain clouds are to the Great Circle of Life on Earth. For it is not the simple fact that we tend to act with self-interest that is the real threat to our wellbeing, but rather the disruptive and dangerous storm clouds that form when the egocentric behavior is taken to the extreme point that it impedes ones ability to feel empathy, act with compassion, and experience love. Whenever a persons beliefs or behaviors hinder his or her ability to care about oneself or another human being with enough interest to motivate selfless behavior, that person loses touch with the loving heart of his or her humanity, just as dark, impenetrable clouds in the sky block the sunlight for those on Earth. Fortunately, as a species we have evolved the ability to modify the way we think, feel, and act, and thus, if we choose, we can cultivate, nurture, and refine the quality of our experience here on Earth.

T HE A LTRUISTIC R OOTS OF A MERICA

It is no wonder, then, that history is replete with examples of compassionate human beings who have voiced their criticism of their intolerable state of affairs by championing their cause in numerous ways, such as critiquing the status quo with pen and paper, making moral pleas to scripture and faith, modeling appropriate behavior through noble works and deeds, and in many cases, resorting to the forceful tactics of violence and war. Our own country was given birth through an orchestrated effort of each of these devices in revolt against England and the oppressive rule of King George III. The noble intent of our founding fathers was to bring about positive and necessary political and social change, not only for the common good of those living in 18th century America, but also for their future generations. Our Declaration of Independence summarized the plight of early American society by noting, The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of

124 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. It then goes on to list over two dozen injustices against the people of the thirteen original colonies, including such charges as, He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people; and, He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. And so, in 1776, thanks to the enlightened and effective leadership of patriots such as John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, a new nation was born that attempted to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to [its people] shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. As Americans at the turn of the 21st century, given our advancements in science and technology, our determination to govern according to democratic principles, and the relative success of our capitalist economy (the recent financial crisis, notwithstanding), we certainly live much better today than our first citizens did and certainly light-years ahead of most of the lot of mankind since the dawn of human evolution. However, in lieu of the wealth, comforts, and cultural isolation of our middle-to-upper class societies, it is easy for some Americans to ignore the prevailing social ills that weaken the personal security and impede the pursuit of happiness for many of our less fortunate compatriots. Their moral reasoning usually involves writing off the predicament of our lower classes and troubled citizens given their failure to make the most of what America has to offer. There may be some validity to this view when capable citizens shirk their personal responsibility for their own welfare; however, such an attitude is clearly an oversimplification of the complex dynamics that drive economic inequity and social injustice. The truth is thatall things consideredan unacceptable segment of We the People has been left behind on our path to liberty and justice for all in pursuit of the American Dream, for which we, as a country of rational and compassionate human beings, need to share responsibility. At the same time, we must recognize that our challenges are not limited to class warfare, though this is certainly one of the more serious conflicts stressing our society. Many of the issues we face are utterly blind to ones wealth and power and thus affect citizens of every economic and social status. In our present mediaaddicted culture, however, not only do we have to be concerned with the real

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 125 matters at handpoverty, disease, war, violence, crime, hypocrisy, corruption, and despair, to name but a fewwe also have to deal with the imbecilic coverage and commentary that impedes the intelligent and empathetic debate needed to do what is right for our nation. For those of us looking for real solutions, this is a quite maddening quagmire to facea country of such greatness being torn apart not only by authoritative and partisan leadership backed by self-serving loyalists, but also by this inability to engage in wise, constructive, and multilateral discussions focused on relieving the unnecessary burden of our American brothers and sisters, let alone our extended human family around the globe. As weve been discussing, our current predicament is a direct result of the fundamental rift that exists in our core cultural values regarding the place of religion, science, and politics in our daily lives. A rift, by the way, that comes with the territory upon which we have staked our claim as a free society. For thanks to our constitution, we are fundamentally a society of free thinkers, able to choose between any personal, social, political, religious, or scientific worldview of our liking; and so we do, with interests and aspirations as diverse and unique as our imagination allows. As such, we are far from being a homogenous community of like-minded people with a strongly defined set of collective ethics, morals, and ideals, as many Old World nations tend to be. To the contrary, we are challenged with finding a way for the fundamentalist Christian, the secular atheist, the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox Jew, the Native American, the Evangelical Protestant, the Pagan, the Zen Buddhist, the conservative Republican, the liberal Democratand the rest of our free-thinking population beholden to a wide range of beliefs and convictionsto coexist peacefully and securely while pursuing their personal happiness. Our real problems tend to arise, however, when many of our compatriots who dont see eye to eye on matters of importancewhether actual or perceived and openly relate to their counterparts in less than respectful and more than provocative ways. While some of these conflicts are merely an exchange of unkind words or threatening bravado, there are clearly much bigger battles going on between patriots of all stripes and colors in our prevailing culture war. The frontline for this confrontation of values and ideals pits the neo-conservative Republicans and fundamentalist Christians on one side and an allied enemy of secular humanists and ultra-liberal Democrats on the other; caught between the two, and often the ones to suffer the collateral damage on behalf of this war, is Americas moderate majority.

126 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n
PLEDGING ALLEGIANCE WITH

O UR F REEDOM OF C ONSCIENCE

Given the divisive social and cultural challenges listed in the previous chapter that we are facing as a nation, lets be clear that our purpose here is not to explore a resolution for every conflict brewing amidst our broad and diverse community. To the contrary, the primary goal before us is to bring transparency to one particular quarrel that closely relates to most of the others. While not the most visible or directly felt issue facing Americans today, one particular disagreement reflects this deeper schism, and gives rise to a great deal of our modern discomfort. Not coincidentally, this discord directly relates to that iconic gesture of committing ourselves to the protection and advancement of our nation and her ideals. We are speaking, of course, about our Pledge of Allegiance, which in its current form is at the center of a somewhat passionate controversy between those who present themselves as God-fearing patriots and those who insist that such reference to a theistic god violates the constitutional separation of Church and State. One side holds that under God is an accurate depiction of our state of affairs, while the other holds that there is no God, period, and to require anyone to pledge allegiance suggesting the contrary is a violation of our constitutional rights. Again, not that a few words in a symbolic statement are critical to the future of America, but the underlying debate over the reality and nature of God and its implications for our moral and political ideals certainly is of significant concern. As most Americans know well, our patriotic pledge to the American flag makes the claim that our republic is One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. What many dont know, however, is that the words at the center of this debate, under God, were not in the original pledge officially added by Congress to the United States Flag Code (Title 36) on June 22, 1942. They were, in fact, inserted on June 14 (Flag Day), 1954 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized this change saying: In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war. More so, although the original supporters argued that they were simply quoting Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, linguist Geoffrey Nurnberg has argued that to Lincoln and his contemporaries, "under God" meant "God willing". As such, if he

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 127 were around today, Lincoln would likely find its use in the Pledge of Allegiance grammatically incorrect and not reflective of his original intent of the words in his speech. Nevertheless, many Americans today still agree with this statement. In fact, they use it to defend the current version of our pledge against the secular swell to remove these two unconstitutional words and return it to its previous form. To date, a Supreme Court decision in 2004, which avoided a ruling on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determination that they are indeed an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism, has thwarted that movement. If you happen to agree with Eisenhower on this point, dont fret. Our everdutiful religious servants in Congress are fighting on Gods side. In July 2006, the House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 2389) which, if enacted into law, would strip the Supreme Court and most federal courts of the power to consider any legal challenges to the Pledge of Allegiance; however, the Senate never acted to take it up, mainly because of considerable debate over Congress authority to limit federal jurisdiction. Acting on behalf of the atheist, on the other hand, you have a high school student who, in that same year, brought a case forward in Florida because he was removed from algebra class after he refused to follow his teacher's instructions to recite the pledge or stand during recitation. The result of that case was that a federal district court in Florida ruled that a 1942 state law requiring students to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Chalk one up for the secularists. Again, for many Americans, on the surface this is not a major point of concern; paying next months rent or taking care of an ill family member are much more pressing issues that tend to occupy our day-to-day lives. However, this is a matter of no minor significance for those Americans who consider themselves active combatants in this virtuous battle of beliefs. At the core of this conflict is no less than the great philosophical ideal that has significantly influenced the formation of our country over the past two and a half centuries: the liberty of conscience, which was how our Founding Fathers framed the principle behind what is more commonly known as the separation of Church and State. During a 2008 interview with Bill Moyers on his PBS show Bill Moyers Journal, American philosopher, Martha Nussbaum, who had recently authored Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality, summarized this American ideal by responding to why she wrote the book at that particular time in our history by saying:

128 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Well, because...on one hand, [there are] people who want more and more to insert their faith, and in particular, Christian faith, into public life, and have more displays of the ten commandments and so on, in public places On the other side are people who simply say we should keep to the separation of church and state. And I thought that language of separation is not all that helpful. And so, what I want to say to those people is that, if we use the language of fair play and equality, rather than just the language of separation of church and state, we can understand why we don't want certain kinds of manifestations of Christianity in public life. It's not because we don't think your religion is important or deep. It's because we want to be fair to other people who have different religions. So we keep religion out of the public square to the extent that we do for reasons of fairness, not because we hate religion or think it unimportant. Elsewhere in the interview, Ms. Nussbaum also clarified why we should respect the fundamental nature of human conscience in each other: If you look into the religions, they have this deep idea of human dignity and the source of dignity being conscience, this capacity for searching for the meaning of life. And that leads us directly to the idea of respect. Because if conscience is this deep and valuable source of searching for meaning, then we all have it whether we're agreeing or disagreeing. And we all ought to respect it and respect it equally in one another." Seems straightforward, doesnt it? Indeed it does, which is why many people have difficulty understanding how this core American value can be a source of disharmony in our country today. Most Americans raised in the late twentieth century public schools learned that our countrys constitution unequivocally declares that our laws must govern free of justification by religious dogma and absent of intent to promote any one religion for the exact purpose of protecting and respecting our liberty of conscience. Yet in 2006, during Katherine Harris bid for the Florida state senateyes, the same Katherine Harris from the 2000 Presidential election debacle between Al Gore and George W. Bush, some Floridians were offered the opportunity to vote for a candidate who made the following statement when asked about the role of people of faith in politics and government:

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 129 we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers. And if we are the ones not actively involved in electing those godly men and women and if people arent involved in helping godly men in getting elected than were going to have a nation of secular laws. As with many comments from people with this patriotic understanding of God, although the underlying premise is an article of faith not fact (that God chooses our rulers for us), there is a kernel of truth in her words; specifically, her notion that Americans need to take responsibility at the voting booths for the quality of people being empowered in our government. In fact, while being godly often carries connotations quite different from being divine, compassionate men and women are exactly what we do need in every position of power and influence in our country, not just politics. We need awakened citizens to serve as credible and honorable leaders in business, education, healthcare, media, and entertainment, as well as the arts and sciences. However, awakened has little correlation to being religious; on the other hand, it does directly relate to being compassionate. More so, spiritually awakened men and women tend to understand that the laws established by a government of the people, for the people, and by the people should be secular in nature. To ensure the most far-reaching protection of liberty and justice, our laws must be independent of religious authority. Rather than reflect any one communitys faith or doctrine to the exclusion of another, our laws must flow from our collective human spirit through our well-developed faculties of reason and morality. This insight aside, to characterize the constitutional principle of separation of church and state as a lie is indicative of a particular mindset alive and well in America, not only today, but also throughout our history. It is one that is shared by every Christian, Muslim, Jew, and [insert religion of choice here] who holds that government should be firmly grounded in Holy Scripture, that the authoritative scripture of choice should be the one defined by the predominant religion of the citizens, and that the government should actively promote the values and dogmas of that religion through its constitution, laws, and judicial system. We call it believing in and striving for a theocratic state, a form of government quite contrarian to the American-style democracy for which so many patriots have honorably sacrificed their lives.

130 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n For American Christians engaged in the current culture war with this point of view, the rules of combat appear somewhat vague at best. They seem very comfortable rewriting our early history, reinterpreting the constitution, redefining the intent of our Founding Fathers, and twisting great political speeches that allude to God into support of their particular religion. That is, these crusaders will do whatever it takes to prove that separation of church and state is a constitutional lie, thus allowing for the overt establishment of a truly Christian nation. More so, one has to wonder how these fundamental ethics vary from Al Qaedas holy jihad to re-establish the khalif as the leader of a great Muslim nation ruled by the law of the Quran. The end goals certainly are like-minded. Granted, American Christians in general do not adhere to the same code of violence in the name of God as do many Muslim jihadists; but then again, there is not a great moral chasm between detonating oneself in a Shiite mosque and gunning down a doctor who provides legal abortions. We see, then, that this ideal zone of neutrality between the institutions of government and religion is subservient to a greater visionthat of liberty and justice for all. Our deeply held belief in the concept of liberal democracy originates in the premiseas stated clearly in our Declaration of Independencethat all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, which among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To the extent that each American is free to live their life in the hopes of attaining his or her own happiness, our government is empowered by usyes, you and me, the very citizens whom it is meant to serveto protect us from the imposed beliefs and/or laws of another person or community that may be contrary to our divinely granted right to our personal freedom of conscience. We now see that this minor scuffle over two words is really about the larger conflict between religion and secularism concerning the place of human spirituality in our government, politics, and public life. On the two extremes of opposition are those atheists who feel any government-related public recognition of a spiritual reality that does not exist is an impingement upon their liberty of conscience on one side, and those Christians who believe we should govern our people according to moral dictates derived from their particular religious interpretation of the Bible on the other. Somewhere in between these poles are many people whowith their more moderate views on the issueeither just dont care, or care, but are simply not inclined to join the fray.

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 131 Then there are those, like myself, who see this discord as resulting from the misperception of a deeper truth, one that does not pit fundamentalist Christians against secular atheists in some epic legal struggle between God and No-God. From this perspective, it does not have to be an either/or debate; rather, there is a third approach to the problemone that redefines GOD beyond a dualistic argument between theism vs. atheism. In fact, from our view, the proper way to express the relationship between GOD and America is to understand our country to be one nation, divine. Unfortunately, the act of shifting the dialogue about God and country from the antagonistic, arrogant stance that characterizes most public discourse today is no small feat. Its one thing to pick a side during a fight and rally those on your team to battle the well-defined enemy on the other side. It is quite another to stand separate from both factions and to embrace each as a potential friend, while pointing out the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that they are mired in given the certitude of their own opinions. Clearly, challenging people on their core attitudes and beliefs about their religion and country is by no means the best way to endear oneself to ones neighbors. In fact, those on the fringe of society will likely condemn such a person outright for heresy or treason. So, to be perfectly clear, the intent here is not to make enemies of any man or woman of any faithreligious and irreligious. To the contrary, it is simply to bring Americans of all political persuasions together to work towards alleviating the suffering and enriching the enjoyment of as many people as possible, first and foremost for the citizens of our youthful nation, but equally so for all citizens of every nation around the globe. Lets also be clear that we put America first not out of any special importance or favoritism in the grand scheme of human existence, but rather based on the premise of that well-known adage, Physician, heal thy self. Before our country can truly play a more respected and effective leadership role in curing the ills and advancing the development of the rest of the world, we need to resolve our own identity crises regarding our highest cultural values. Then we need to develop the appropriate social, political, and economic solutions consistent with the spiritual ideals embraced by those shared ethics. Once we stabilize our own health, then we can better serve the international community, at large. Easier said than done, of course; none-the-less, in light of this premise, we focus first on the fundamental issues at hand facing our nation. We start by again acknowledging that our difficulty in meeting most of our domestic challenges is firmly rooted in a deep schism between our prevailing

132 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n scientific, religious, and political worldviews and the way things truly are. Our future as a nation ultimately depends on the reconciliation of this knowledge gap by awakening to the truth of our human divinity and the sacredness of the universe through which we have evolved. While this needs to occur at the personal level one human at a time, it must eventually find a way to replicate itself as a shared cultural value to the same degree that every American agrees we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Furthermore, the cornerstone for such beneficial cooperation must be an unwavering commitment to the noble and inspiring ideal of liberty, justice, and compassion for all; whereby, all includes every human being in each of the worlds one hundred and ninety-three nations, not just every American. We must grant Liberty and justice to each human being so we can protect our right to follow our conscience and to master our spiritual domain, while also promoting social order and the good of the larger community. Just as important, however, human compassion must be guiding the way as our moral compass. For only with authentic empathy for others do we see the need and feel the impulse to reconcile the great injustices and diminish the dehumanizing powers in the world. Moreover, only through earnest self-mastery in its many forms and expressions that is, though developing authentic free will and a healthy conscience by means of various spiritual practicesdo we bring forth such genuine compassion. The key insight that makes compassion a viable addition to our American values of freedom and equality for all is that we can now accept that it is an innate quality of human nature, in the same way that we declare the pursuit of happiness a natural desire. As weve shown, our human brain has evolved to enable this profound spiritual transformation into a loving and compassionate creature through its highly complex components and finely honed neural networks. Hence, we are each born with the capacity to transcend our instincts to be a slave to our ego and to serve a greater purpose for the benefit of others. More important, this potential for transcendence just may be the key to our future survival. Indeed, beyond the personal fulfillment we can experience by embracing a personal lifestyle devoted to the loving service of others, it would be equally wise and beneficial for We the People to value compassion for our neighbors at the global level, as well.

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 133

A GREEING ON T HE P ROBLEM AND I TS S OLUTION

To examine this worldwide demand for universal compassion, lets turn to the movie adaptation of Carl Sagans thought-provoking book, Contact, during the making of which the beloved author of popular science books passed away from a rare bone marrow disease. In this 1997 science fiction film, Jodie Foster plays the main character, Dr. Ellie Arroway, a passionate astronomer set on searching for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Ever the dutiful skeptic, Ellie is engaged on several occasions throughout the film by Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey), a spiritual journalist who dropped out of the seminary to investigate the relationship between technology and spirituality in modern societyand apparently because he couldnt live with the whole celibacy thingsetting up the movies core tension around the interplay and intersection of science, religion, spirituality, and God. Sagan reveals Palmers fundamental concern through a scene that depicts a televised interview with Larry King, in which Palmer states the spiritual question he is asking in his books to be: Are we happier as a human race? Is the world fundamentally a better place because of science and technology? In short, throughout the movie, Sagan intelligently explores various themes related to this existential concern regarding how well we are progressing spiritually as a species given our technological achievements, such as the intolerance of religion, the existence of God, the boundaries of scientific knowledge, the nature of faith, and the reality of love. As the story unfolds, Ellie eventually appears before an international selection committee, which interviews her for an adventure that may literally put her in contact with an advanced, alien civilization. As part of that interrogation, the panel of dignitaries asks Ellie if she had one and only one question to pose to her new found friends as a representative of the human race, what would that be. She responds by saying, Well, I supposed it would be, How did you do it? How did you evolve, how did you survive this technological adolescence without destroying yourself? Thatmore than any other questionis the one that I personally would like to have answered. Demonstrating his keen sense of what really matters in the pursuit of science and spirituality, Sagan captured the essence of our current dilemma as a species: given the power unleashed through our relatively advanced technologies coupled with our rather immature spiritual consciousness, how can we rise to the next level before we destroy the stairs upon which we are climbing? What is the

134 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n key to mastering our human domain while maturing to higher stages of human potential? With that knowledge, we can certainly increase our odds of navigating the rough terrain ahead; without it, we may be doomed to traverse blindly through uncharted waters filled with unseen obstacles that can tear apart the very ship on which we sail, all the while hoping and praying that we find our way to safe, but distant shores. As Karen Armstrong poignantly observes about our current predicament as a species in The Great Transformation: Many of our difficulties mask a deeper spiritual crisis. During the 20th century, we saw the eruption of violence on an unprecedented scale. Sadly, our ability to harm and mutilate one another has kept pace with our extraordinary economic and scientific progress. We seem to lack the wisdom to hold our aggression in check and keep it within safe and appropriate bounds Unless there is some kind of spiritual revolution that can keep abreast of our technological genius, it is unlikely we will save our planet. A purely rational education will not suffice. From an evolutionary perspective, this threat of advancing technologies without the wisdom of compassion guiding us is putting pressure on our species to either adapt or face premature extinction. In light of the fact that the 20th century saw the development of the technological means for the combined hatred and ignorance of humanity to destroy our world, We the People and our brothers and sisters around the world, are clearly in the midst of a deep spiritual crisis that is endangering our very existence. Moreover, when one looks closely at the complexity of the situation, it appears that our only hope is in the wisdom that, as poet W.H. Auden so bluntly prophesied, We must love one another, or die. Tragic as that may sound to those with little-to-no faith in the human spirit to transcend our biological instincts for selfish and egotistical behavior, there is good news in this view. Fortunately, not only are we able to develop this innate capacity for compassion given our biological evolution, but more so, the source of that love that we so desperately need is actually the most abundant resource in the universe. As Matthew Fox observes in A Spirituality named Compassion: Uniting Mystical Awareness with Social Justice, Compassion is everywhere. Compassion is the worlds richest energy source. Reflecting the same insight as Auden, Fox passionately concludes that since the world is now an interrelated and

A C a l l f o r C o m p a s s i o n | 135 interconnected global village, we need compassion more than evernot for altruisms sake, nor for philosophys sake, nor for theologys sake, but for survivals sake. Likewise, in Social Intelligence, Daniel Goleman argues that it is precisely in the mastering of our evolved ability to empathize with other humans and to respond with loving kindnessthat is, by raising our social intelligence and expanding our capacity for universal carethat we can effectively respond to the many challenges of daily living here on Earth all around the globe. As he sums it up, The hidden links among our relationships, our brain function and our very health and wellbeing, are stunning in their implications. Indeed, he concludes that we must meet many of our social, political, and economic challenges with fully developed human compassion, or else the horrific injustices imposed on the ignorant and impoverished of the world will continue to sustain the spiritual cesspool known as human suffering. In the final chapter of The Moral Landscape, entitled The Future of Happiness, Sam Harris opens with the same optimism toward our current situation that we have already posited: that over the course of human history our moral development has progressed toward the increased capacity for more compassionate living through a universal concern for others. As he confesses: No one has ever mistaken me for an optimist, yet when I consider one of the more pristine sources of pessimismthe moral development of our speciesI find reasons for hope. Despite our perennially poor behavior, our moral progress seems to me unmistakable. Our powers of empathy are clearly growing. Today we are more surely to act for humanity as a whole, than at any point in the past. Of course, the 20th century offered us some unprecedented horrors. But those of us that live in the developed world are becoming increasingly disturbed by our capacity to do one another harm. We are less tolerant of collateral damage in times of warand we are less comfortable with ideologies that demonize whole populations, justifying their abuse or outright destruction. As we head into the 21st century, then, we seem to have clear agreement amongst an historian of religion, a political poet, an Episcopal priest, a science journalist, and a New Atheist neuroscientist, at the least, on the problem at hand and the appropriate solution to pursue. Each believes we currently face the

136 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n potential to destroy civilization as we know it today, at least in the near term, and quite possible to bring about the premature extinction of our species; either way, it appears certain that the current path we are on is destined to result in undue and unnecessary suffering for an unacceptable number of human beings. Each also believes that to avoid this fate, we must consciously develop deep empathy, nurture a healthy conscience, and cultivate a compassionate way of life, amongst ourselves and for our neighbors. In truth, many more people of even greater philosophical and religious diversity have also come to the same conclusion about our current predicament. All things considered, then, most of us would agree that our future as a species is precarious at best, and at worse, doomed to arrive at just another evolutionary dead end, likely as a result of cosmicand possibly divine indifference. As such, we simply cannot afford inaction in the face of such formidable odds. Fortunately, the challenge before us is not that we have to discover how to do something new and different, but rather that we must simply learn to harness that alternative source of spiritual energya.k.a., love and compassion, already available through our very humanity, for our common good. Our world situation is demanding that we actively and consciously participate in the evolutionary process as co-creators of our future reality. We are compelled to contribute to our own survival through the act of self-mastery at the individual level so we can channel the redemptive power of universal compassion for all at the social level. Therefore, it will only be through the realization of appropriate personal, social, and cultural responses to this predicament by a critical number of awakened individuals that we can successfully face this challenge to thrive and survive. Given our rather perilous situation, our children and our childrens children implore us to plot a new course towards a more viable way of being both human, and American, here and now on planet Earth.

Is Love Enough?
WRITTEN & PERFORMED BY MICHAEL FRANTI We want freedom of speech But we all talking at the same time We say we want peace but nobody wants to change their own mind And it goes on and on and on For a thousand year And it goes on and on and on What language are your tears Everybody wants to live the life of kings and queens But nobody wants to stay and plow the fields Everybody wants to tell their neighbors how to live But nobody wants to listen to how they feel And it goes on and on and on For a thousand year And it goes on and on and on What language are your tears But what I got to say one more time is Love enough yeah, Love enough yeah, Love enough yeah Or could you love some more And it goes on and on and on For a thousand year And it goes on and on and on What language are your tears What language are you tears What language is your laughter What language is your sadness What language is your joy Believe in coexistence.

A Return from Exile

NOW

THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED to more fully actuate our human

potential for love and compassion, the question before us is a more practical one: Is such a change in our American way of life even possible before we come crashing down as a nation and a species, or are we already too late? For our future generations, lets hope theres still time left; but even more so, again for their sake, lets assume there is, then figure out how to navigate the obstacles before us successfully using the trustworthy guides of wisdom, imagination, moral fortitude, scientific knowledge, and brotherly love. There is no more noble human cause facing us today than this, so why not give it our best try? In fact, if we truly love our families and our country, let alone the entirety of the human race, then we really have no choice but to try. But even more important, whether we are committed to this cause or not, whether we strive to co-create a more compassionate world for others or not, our participation is ultimately our choice to make; just know that we can literally shape the future of humanity by offering helping hands motivated by a loving heart, if we so choose.

T OWARDS A S PIRITUAL T IPPING P OINT

While my idealistic notion of a great spiritual awakening coming to our rescue has taken a brutal beating over the past three decades, there is still some hope that a critical level of acceptance of our divinity may indeed help steer us away from the fast approaching iceberg looming just under the surface of our prevailing religious, scientific, and political paradigms. For example, there is encouragement in the notion of reaching a tipping point in the spread of this personal and social awareness, a concept that refers to that climactic moment when something unique becomes common. Popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, the idea is that social epidemics

140 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n considered to be sudden and often chaotic changes from one state of knowing, being, behaving, or believing to anotherare produced when a relatively small group of highly influential connectors (people with large social circles who establish a network), mavens (people who have the knowledge and lead the way), and salesmen (people with charisma to spread the word) consciously and/or unconsciously cooperate to market the latest fashion, gadget, behavior, belief, lie, truth, or what have you. Product marketers care about this phenomenon so they can get consumers to want and buy their merchandise. Fashion marketers care about it so they can set trends for their designers to exploit; and, sadly, some politicians care so they can manipulate their constituents with their version of the truth. Heres one small example. Most Americans know of the slam on Al Gore for supposedly claiming that he, personally, invented the Internet, as if he were calling himself the God of the World Wide Web in front of whom everyone should bow. In fact, some seven years later a co-worker made this exact condescending condemnation of him during lunch in the context of a conversation about Gores film on global climate change titled An Inconvenient Truth. This now urban legend is an example of how some political strategists set out to beat their opponents by belittling them in the eyes of the public. More important, however, is to note that this particular twisted truth has become a social epidemic through the conscious intent of certain extreme partisan pundits (mavens), media moguls (connectors) and politicians (salesmen) to denigrate Al Gore before the 2000 presidential election. Heres how. On March 9, 1999 during an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNNs Late Edition, Al Gore made this statement when asked to distinguish himself from another party candidate, Bill Bradley: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system. Gore was simply pointing out a facthe was instrumental in bringing the vision of a networked nation to fruition through congressional support. Although he may have awkwardly stated it, he was not boasting of any great overblown sense of selfimportance. Nevertheless, thats what the opposition party wanted America to

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 141 believe. So with the help of a few partisan radio talk show hosts and media personalities who eventually morphed Gores statement into invented the Internet (apparently for its alliterative charm), the networking of the party power players, and the party politicians who sold the myth to the public, once the scales were tipped, presto, you have a prevailing cultural beliefif not a pure fallacy of fact. Even more important to the strategists, the subtle message promulgated was clear: Al Gore is a self-aggrandized fool who is not fit to be president. There you have it, the theory of the tipping point exploitedconsciously by the few and less consciously by the manyto serve a political agenda void of any respect for the truth. But hey, if they can pull it off and the body politic does not object or revolt, then more power to them. Al Gore and his political operation could have responded to the allegations more forcibly, and possibly affected the critical mass required to reach the tipping point. Regardless, the point here is not to condemn either side of the political chessboard, as much as to say this: if manipulating our collective consciousness for unethical political reasons is acceptable, then why not for ethical, apolitical reasons as well. Instead of tipping our minds towards divisiveness and bi-partisan stalemate, lets cooperate towards spreading the social epidemic of being valued for our human divinity. We dont need everyone to wake up first on their own, we just need the right mavens, connectors, and salespeople to fuel our momentum to the critical mass required to tip the consciousness of the moderate majority. Gladwells The Law of the Few posits that those with the talents described above have disproportionate persuasion over the spread of social epidemics and with their assistance, anything is possible; but without them, widespread dissemination is unlikely to happen. So knowing that a relative few can shift the overall balance is at least one reason for hope, but certainly not the only one. Believing that the social consciousness of our moderate majority is in some sense primed for this shift also adds to the reasons for optimism. Yet, returning to our looming iceberg, when reflecting on whether or not our national cruise liner known as The United States of America is nimble enough to avoid a disastrous collision with our prevailing spiritual ignorance, hence sinking us into the depths of even greater political turmoil and division, the melodic voice of musician Jimmy Buffet rings in my ears: Is there heaven here on earth or is this really hell only time will tell. While it is not possible to know the future with any great precision, the outcome may ultimately depend on our

142 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n willingnessor lack thereofto master our human domain and to co-create an adaptive way of living as an integral species within the larger ecosystem on this fragile planet of ours. We must attain enough critical mass to successfully shift our social consciousness and, consequently, bring our ship around to a new course one guided by our collective moral compass aligned with a commitment to liberty, justice, and compassion for all. The key, as noted, is to make the idea of human divinity popular in our everyday American culture.

T HE D EAD C ERTAIN F AILURE OF D IPLOMACY

So what is it that stands in our way of charting a new course for America? Well, as weve been discussing, a good place to start is to examine the roles religion, science, and politics play on the battlefield of our culture war, especially given that each is entrenched in their established domain over vital aspects of our daily life and out of touch with reality in some very critical ways. So lets take a moment to begin exploring these three human institutions and the source of their conflict more closely; well certainly go much deeper and farther in this effort by dedicating a whole chapter to each (Chapters 9, 10, & 11). To start, each in its most simple form exists today to serve one of three basic needs for the survival of our species. Religion serves us by defining who we are and why were here, that is, it provides us with meaning. Science serves us by revealing how the world in which we live operates, giving us the technology to master our environment; and, politics serves us by governing how we interact with each other as social beings, establishing law and order in our communities. The reality of American life, however, is that each institution is far from contained within its primary sphere of influence; for it is precisely when one tries to bully another into seeing or doing things its way that trouble brews in our society. When science attempts to answer why we are here, or when religion tells government it must treat one group of people different than another, or when politics favor one religion over another or a particular ideology over scientific facts, we tend to run into problemsoften very serious ones at that. Moreover, since it is near impossible to keep each from wielding their power across shaky borders on practical matters that we face every day, any attempt to build indestructible walls of separation along defined boundaries is a frustratingly futile effort. The result is that we find ourselves in the midst of a war of cultural values and ideas, sometimes fought through small skirmishes across a broad national front, at other times through highly aggressive and costly battles in rather specific

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 143 locales. Our Civil War may be long over, but our civil discontent is still alive and well on many practical matters of religious, scientific, and political concern. Yet, maybe building a fortress around each territory is not the only option. Yes, to some degree we need to demarcate clear borders for each domain, as our constitution has done by establishing the ideal of freedom of conscience through the making of our laws. Rather than try to isolate the power and influence of each, an effective diplomatic approach may help solve some of the more tenuous conflicts between the three institutions. Diplomacy, in this sense, simply means holding a dialogue with all parties in an attempt to agree on anything and everything that can be understood as the common good for the human society that each institutionlest we forgetis ultimately trying to serve. This sounds pretty straightforward, howeveras has been proven time and again over the course of our historythere is one attitude that tends to get in the way of effective diplomacy between human beings: what we can call the Im Right, Youre Wrong stance of those engaged in the process. Sure, everyone wants to solve the problems of the world, but only the few are brave enough to open to the possibility that the position they hold and defend might actually be anywhere from slightly inaccurate to flat out wrong. In turn, that unwillingness to accept change in oneself usually interferes with working with others towards making bigger changes for the common good. Ironically, it is precisely this very natural, very instinctual, very human need to defend ones beliefs and to stick to ones convictions that stands in the way of bringing true, prevailing peace to the world, no matter how much diplomatic banter takes place. Because being right means you dont have to listen to the other side, since they are flat out wrong; they can talk until their faces turn every shade of color under the rainbow, it just doesnt matter. Music artist and social critic Michael Franti sums it up quite poetically in his song, Is Love Enough?, which he introduced at one of his concerts by saying, This is a song thats about the Freedom of Speech. Perhaps in this time when there is so much division in the world between nations and religious groups, that perhaps the freedom of speech isnt quite as important today as all of us beginning to exercise our freedom to listen to one another. Indeed, listening to others is at the core of compassion, for we cant act for the betterment of others until we empathize with their situation and fully understand what they need. So to counter those sitting at the table who literally and figuratively refuse to learn the language of others so they can listen to and understand their tears, laughter, sadness, and

144 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n joy, Michael Franti wisely and passionately calls on those with hearts wide open to break this ageless cycle of ineffective diplomacy by bringing more compassion to bear on the negotiations at hand. In the end, the hope is that our LOVE will indeed be enough to make a difference. Similarly, in an interview with Robert Wright on his website meaningfullife.tv, Karen Armstrong addressed a question about how we can dialogue with those who are so fundamentally different in worldview from our own, that they have little interest for diplomacy and, in fact, are perfectly intent on causing us grave harm. After noting the clashing of fundamentalism with liberalism and secularism in such regions of the world as the United States, Israel, and the Middle East, Ms. Armstrong noted: We are living in societies where people literally cannot speak to each other; they literally dont share the same language. I think one thing that we can do is to try to understand what lies at the base of the rhetoric and ideology. To try to decode some of these theologies, and to see the pain, and the fear, and the anger, and the humiliation that lies at their root; not just dismiss them as a bunch of loonies. This is not respectful; it is not compassionate. Thats the first step, perhaps: learn to listen. We see, then, that even where the widest gulfs exist between peoples, cultures, and communities, the best place to start is to listen to the perspective of the other with whom there is conflict. From a neuroscience perspective, Michael Gazzaniga argues in The Ethical Brain that the belief systems that are brought to the table of diplomacy are in essence nothing more or less than stories created by our brains to explain why we behave the way we do in the world. Some are scientific, some are religious, some are cultural, and some may be personal, but in the end, they are all stories of which none can lay claim to the single truth about the world. Yet, cling to them we do, and surprisingly to some, research suggests that scientists tend to resist changing their beliefs in the face of new data more so than many religious men and women; in fact, men, in general, hold on stronger to their beliefs than women. The reason for this, according to Gazzaniga, is thatcontrary to our intuitive conceptionsrecent research also supports the notion that our behavior actually precedes what we believe, and not necessarily vice versa. We instinctively react to events, and then through a specialized meaning-making system in the left hemisphere of our brain, which Gazzaniga has termed the interpreter, we create a story, or set of beliefs, that makes sense of why we acted as we did, often in a

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 145 reflexive manner. For example, in an early study conducted by Gazzaniga, himself, patients who had their left and right brain hemispheres surgically separated were shown two pictures simultaneously: to the right hemisphere (left eye) was shown snow, and to the left hemisphere (right eye) was shown a chicken. The researcher then asked the patient to point with the right and left hand at a picture related to what he or she saw. Given that our brain hemispheres operate the opposite hand that is, the left hemisphere controls the right hand and vice versathe left hand pointed to a shovel corresponding to the snow shown to the right brain. When asked about why he pointed to the shovel, the patient, whose leftbrain interpreter did not receive the image of the snow from the right brain because of the neurological separation between the two, and only had the image of the chicken to go on, quickly responded, Thats to clean up the chicken coop. In that moment of interpretation, then, the mechanism for making sense of the situation made the most of the given data and drew an appropriate conclusion under the circumstances about why the patient acted as he did; unfortunately, the result was an accepted belief that did not fully represent the truth. While just one small example, there are numerous other studies, which support the same theory of how we process information, as we shall see in later chapters. For now, the important point is that out of this post-hoc interpretative process, beliefs emerge which contain various sets of rules to live by, some moral, some practical, but all demanding a sense of conviction in their truth given their intimate relation to how we define who we are, and how we behave, in our world. Indeed, as Robert Wright suggests, from an evolutionary perspective, it is important to bear in mind that when it comes to our moral beliefs, the feeling of moral rightness is something Natural Selection created so that people would employ it selfishly. Need we say more? Regarding the strength of our conviction and our sense of moral certitude, as well as their implications for cultural diplomacy given this understanding of how we form beliefs, Gazzaniga comments: We also know the many ways the strength of a belief can be manipulated. It can be placed in conflict, followed by resolution; it can be subjected to reinforcement and repetition, and emotional tags can be attached to it; or it can be diluted with competing ideas. And, given that we know these things about beliefs, that most are interpretations based on the knowledge available at the time they were formed, and that they none-the-less seem to stick in the mind, how can

146 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n we manage to take seriously so many current religious and political beliefs? After further demonstrating the fact that there does appear to be some universal sense of ethics encoded in our brains in response to common experiences, Gazzaniga goes on to suggest that:. The tension felt in the modern world between those who look at the confluence of neuroscientific data, historical data, and other information illuminating our past [science] and those who simply accept received wisdom as their guide in life [institutionalized religion] is real and profound. Yet it may not be as divisive as one would think. It appears that we all share the same moral networks and systems, and we all respond in similar ways to similar issues. The only thing different, then, is not our behavior, but our theories about why we respond the way we do. It seems to me that understanding our theories are the source of all our conflict would go a long way with helping people with different belief systems to get along. Indeed, it is when we look past the surface of our culturally-defined stories and into the heart of the matter at handhow we actually live in the worldthat we truly can find the common ground and mutual bonds of our humanity which can pave the way to new and creative diplomatic solutions to the challenges before us. Besides learning to listen to each other and to understand the nature of our conflicting worldviews, however, there is one other somewhat more difficult and uncomfortable method for trying to break the impasse caused by the certitude of rightness many people hold towards an issue, and the consequent refusal to consider reaching a compromise. That tact is to expose the inconsistencies and hypocrisies that invariably accompany such inflexible attitudes towards false and inaccurate beliefs and opinions, clearly and persistently. For in doing so, the light of reality will eventually illuminate the shadowy places where such ignorance lives, and, thus, render it mute and irrelevant. However, the issue actually runs deeper than just the human need to be right giving rise to rampant hypocrisy; for many people, it is more virtuous to believe one is right about what one believes than to actually be right, to the point of fanaticism. In other words, fanatic faith trumps fact.

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 147 Nevertheless, elevating an addiction to a virtue is not a good thing, for no sane person would consider being obsessed with sex, food, or drink a virtue; to the contrary, we typically view a monomaniacal attitude towards anything as an unhealthy and destructive vice. Indeed, history demonstrates that an obsession with being right about ones faith is often the cause of great suffering; the abundant acts of terrorism in the name of some holy cause should be evidence enough, with the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and September 11 easily coming to mind. However, we can also look to our forty-third president as well for another example of this arrogant mindset; the book entitle Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, by Robert Draper, pretty much says it all. Unfortunately, Bushs own certitude of rightness about his religious, scientific, and political beliefs resulted in more war, turmoil, and death for America and the international community, than peace, harmony, and life. Its a shame that one of our presidents stands out as the perfect example of what can go wrong when religion, politics, andin this casethe lack of science are manipulated and abused by those who live by their own, personal Golden Rule of Im Right, Your Wrong. Indeed, it is an American tragedy of well-told proportions. Therefore, we need to confront those fixated on their need to be right, whether about their faith, their science, or their politics, by starting with this observation: hypocritical attitudes and behaviors represent substantial cracks in the walls defending institutionalized doctrines when they fail to reflect the way things truly are in the real world. This is true at both the personal and social level; in other words, whether it is an individual or a community that clings to incoherent worldviews for the sake of being right, eventually the friction between belief and reality will wear down the faade built to protect it. It may take years, decades, or centuries, but it will happen. More important, though, is to recognize that when those decrepit walls stand in the way of better serving the common good of humanity, it is not only wise and prudent to exploit those fault lines so as to assist in the crumbling of such barriers, it is morally incumbent to do so. Indeed, out of compassion for his Jewish community, Jesus of Nazareth did exactly this in challenging the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and their certitude of rightness toward their interpretation of the Torah.

T HE E TERNAL S ADNESS FROM THE G REAT B EYOND

Given this rather stubborn obstacle to steering our nation towards a better future, one can be quite discouraged with our present situation. In fact, surveying the

148 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n current landscape of American life today as it has been shaped by our religion, science, and politics, many hearts are saddened by the injustices and inequities that are still far too prevalent in a country of such great wealth and prosperity; and when the international community is brought into view with its war, poverty, and daily strive, the sorrow only deepens. For those living life with their eyes, ears, and hearts wide open to the reality of human suffering that takes place in every moment somewhere on this planet, underneath every conscious thought and emotion is a somber sense of grief and sorrow. With all due respect, especially to the three thousand men, women, and children that lost their lives on 9/11, and their families and friends, as reported in the spring of 2008, at that time the same number of mostly women and children died in the Republic of Congo every two days. Likewise, wasted lives have piled up for decades elsewhere around the African Continent, particularly in such places as Darfur, Somalia, and Zimbabwe. Moreover, lets not forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who lost their lives and the millions displaced by the poorly conceived and executed Iraq War. For those who share a deep sense of living as one human family here on Earth, the hypocrisy of rallying behind our American tragedy at all costs while being oblivious to the plight of our African and Iraqi brothers and sisters is a frustrating reality to face. Of course, such self-concern of a community in the wake of a brutal, well-targeted attack would likely be found on every continent and amidst the people of every nation, so we are not alone in our sense of self-import; but that does not make it right, nor does it excuse any further violence in the form of retaliation or revenge. September 11 was no doubt a moment of great anguish for most of humanity, but it was neither the first nor likely the last, nor by any means is it, nor will it likely be, the most tragic in human history. For those Americans who are blind to this truth and wish to cling to 9/11 as some insult to America beyond comparison to the many other atrocities that occur around the world far too frequently, and thus provide justification for any action we deem necessary in the name of national security, regardless of the impact on innocent civilians, it would be wise to remember one very important truth. As Michael Franti put it in Crazy, Crazy, Crazya song that calls for compassion in response to our national apathy towards the consequences of war, No life's worth more than any other, no sister worth less than any brother. Quite simply, one human life equals one human life, regardless of nationality, creed, gender, skin color, or any human trait that one can namea principle proclaimed

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 149 as truth by our own constitution, as we well know. Unfortunately, there is a pretty big gap between this ideal and the reality of our national policies, which is why Michael Franti is led to write such lyrics as this: It's crazy, crazy, crazy, no stoppin' to this warfare It's crazy, crazy, we're breathing in the same air It's crazy, crazy, crazy, don't tell me that you don't care Consequently, for many people around the globe, this insanity is a heartless source of immeasurable pain and anguish amongst our brothers and sisters, which, in turn, stirs a sincere sense of sorrow deep within our hearts and minds. For those on an authentic spiritual journey, however, a key aspect of human compassion is that we awaken to all forms of sentient suffering when we feel a strong sense of connection with the world around us. As Christian mystic Thomas Merton so keenly observed, The whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all these living beings, which are all part of one another, and all involved in one another. Consequently, many spiritual practitioners report the paradoxical experience of reaching great heights of peace and comfort in their meditations and a deepening intimacy with the world around them, while at the same time developing the subtle symptoms of depression, or melancholia, to varying degrees. We find one illustrative example of this connection between compassion and sorrow in the book Destructive Emotions: A Scientific Dialogue with the Dalai Lama, which reviews the Mind Life Institutes conference in 2000 dedicated to exploring Western and Buddhist philosophies on the title subject. In it, author Daniel Goleman reports on several experiments that used fMRI and EEG data to analyze the state of mind of a highly advanced practitioner of Buddhist meditation, Lama ser. The particular experiment of interest here involved showing Lama ser two films depicting two rather gruesome scenes of the human body, one with the persons face in view, and the other focused just on a body partin this a case, a leg. Invariably, those humans who watch the film experience disgust towards both videos, and indeed, while applying a meditative technique while viewing these scenes, Lama ser reported primarily feeling disgust at the unsightly leg. However, while in the same state of mind, he deviated significantly from the standard emotional response while seeing the whole person. Summarizing the experimenters observations, Goleman points out:

150 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n

Where he sees the whole person, ser feels compassion. His thoughts are about human suffering and how to relieve it. His feelings were about a sense of caring and concern, mixed with a not-unpleasant, strong sadness. [My emphasis] In the Catholic Tradition, this juxtaposition of compassion and sorrow is often portrayed in the person of Mary, Jesus mother, who always seems to have an expression of deep empathy on her soft, serene face, as one who feels the suffering of others and desires to relieve their pain as if it were her own, while fully at peace in her soul. For many of the fair criticisms against the Catholic Church during the Protestant Reformation, one baby thrown out with the proverbial bathwater was this reverence to the Matriarch as embodied in the mythology of Mary, cutting off a much-needed source of feminine virtues to offsetat least to some small degreethe ruling patriarchy of Christianity over the centuries. Protestants were, however, able to compensate in some part by removing the barriers to women that prohibited them from taking strong leadership roles in the church community. Yet, as the repressive history of the entire Christian church demonstrates, representing the feminine characteristics of humanity in religious symbols, and allowing women to serve in pastoral and ministerial roles, does not guarantee the nurturing of universal care and compassion to their fullest development. Again, the point here is that a deep sense of sadness over, and discontent with, the plight of our human family typically accompanies the experience of authentic compassion; a truth often represented culturally through the symbols and metaphors presented in our feminine myths of the ever-compassionate Divine Mother. While it may seem that such a profound sense of sorrow or depression often leads to unenthused or debilitating states of mental illness, the truth is that it can actually be a source of great motivation and heroic achievement. For a case in point, we turn to good old Abe, once again. In his book, Lincolns Melancholy: How Depression Challenged a President and Fueled his Greatness, historian Joshua Wolf Shenk makes a convincing case that Lincolns disconsolate emotional condition, understood in his day as more of a personality trait then a psychological ailment, enabled him to gain great depth of insight into human nature, especially his own, eventually leading to his vital spiritual development and an unswerving commitment to guide and save our nation from imminent collapse.

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 151 Evidence from psychological research also suggests that many other respected figures of history who suffered from some form of depression were successful in their endeavors precisely because this mental state typically produces a very realistic assessment of the challenges at hand. Optimists may be more fun at a party, but they also tend to hold highly delusional perceptions about the way things really are, making them less effective in getting things done. So when depression or melancholia are the result of thoughtful reflection on the full spectrum of human experience by a sharp mind and a caring heartas opposed to being directly rooted in psychotic or physiological causesthey can be allies along the path of spiritual awakening.

R EPLACING H OPE WITH H OPE

The challenge that then arises for anyone facing the predicament of feeling disheartened by the realities of life is to answer the unavoidable question, What can I do to make a difference, if anything at all? Fortunately, many brave and honorable men and women besides Lincoln have answered this call throughout our American history by bringing forth their unique gift of service wrapped in compassion for the benefit of the common good. The intent here is to do the same by setting forth three primary goals heretofore discussed: The first is to stimulate and encourage full-fledged diplomacy in settling the culture war of modern day America by offering a fresh perspective on the underlying dysfunctions between religion, science, and politics. The second is to use this other perspective to dismantle the defense of archaic and immature religious, scientific, and political attitudes and beliefs being upheld simply out of the human need to be right, and in some cases, fiercely protected by those fixated on being right about their faith. The third, most importantly, is to strive towards the first two with nothing less than the deepest and most sincere empathy and compassion. This final goal is of vital concern for one main reason: for many people trying to survive in our world today, to admit to being wrong about some of the most fundamental truths on which they rely to cope with the full spectrum of human experience is a fearsome proposition; indeed, it requires a brave soul to let go of the idolatrous faith in a myth and to directly embrace the reality of its meaning. Therefore, without acknowledging this fear-based resistance to change, one could inflict greater harm on another if there is not an alternative truth offered to replace the withered belief.

152 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n For example, one day while my wife and I were sitting somewhat secluded on our local beach, a trio of middle school-aged girls approached us. They claimed to be on a retreat with their church and were on a mission to understand what other people believe about God and what is important to them in life. As my wife and I shared our particular views, they soon realized we werent your average Christian, agnostic, or atheist for that matter. As the conversation progressed, I began to press them on their own beliefs, and to begin to lead them beyond the narrow dogma they were regurgitating for our benefit. Finally, after the one rather petite, shy girl confessed to believing Jesus died for our sins and opened the gates to heaven for us, I asked her why it was so important for her to believe that to be true. She replied with a look of stunned horror on her face, If not, then I have no hope! Bingo! I exclaimed, But there are other sources of hope than that one story, you just havent been taught what they are. As my wife later reminded me, I might have been a little too eager to dig into the cracks of the belief system of these young people, but I couldnt help feeling frustrated with the restricting mindset imposed on them by their mythic faith. Still, it would never be my wish to truly dismantle that young girls belief in the myth of Jesus as Savior only to leave her bereft of hope in life; out of compassion for her wellbeing, I am compelled to offer an alternative source of hope to fill her need for meaning. Again, the moral of this story points to the real issue behind the Im Right, Youre Wrong, certitude of rightness mentality, particularly with religious people who equate being wrong with losing the meaning that was being propped up by the idolized myth in the first place. On a much larger scale, we see this same dynamic between Christians and atheists regarding the existence of God and the implications for living a moral and compassionate life. For most Christians, a person cannot live a holy life without a belief in God and Jesus as Savior, so to be wrong about that is to abandon any moral imperative in the world. Yet this is just not the case, so for many Christians, it remains more virtuous to believe they are right; hence, they defend their position at all cost. In light of this antagonistic, close-minded, immoveable stance of so many Americans regarding what they believe, it certainly appears that LOVE may not be enough to bring about the change needed to set our country on the path to a better tomorrow; however, LOVE does, indeed, conquer all, even those religious hypocrites and rational cynics that stand in ITS way.

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 153

R EACHING A GREEMENT TO B RING C OMPASSION H OME

The relatively good news regarding our culture war is that, as with any clash of conflicting ideals, although it is often difficult to reach agreement on the core issues at hand, it is by no means impossible. For example, in recent years there has been considerable effort on behalf of the atheist community to expose the supposed delusion of God, and to connect the vast array of human suffering primarily to the failures, fantasies, and fallacies of organized religion. Yet, while much of what atheists have to say about religious dogma and blind faith, as well as other moral and spiritual matters, is quite antagonistic to believers in Godboth moderate and extremists, alikeit is not always at odds with human morality, especially as presented both within our collective mystical traditions and within the context presented here. Take, for instance, the intriguing fact that in The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, author Sam Harrismuch to the dismay of many of his hardcore atheist and materialist cohortsacknowledges a sacred dimension to the universe, which can be directly perceived and experienced through certain spiritual practices. Granted, Mr. Harris avoids the use of God at all costs, but even in the absence of a Supreme Being, he postulates the negative version of the Golden Rule as his core moral principle related to our interactions with other sentient beings: do not cause suffering for others as you would not cause suffering for one self. In short, he is taking a consequential or utilitarian view of morality, which equates good moral behavior with maximizing the amount of happiness or pleasure, and minimizing the amount of pain or suffering, of other life forms capable of such conscious experience. In The Moral Animal, throughout which Robert Wright uses the life of Charles Darwin to exemplify many of the insights gained into our human nature through evolutionary biology, Wright summarizes Darwins own attitude toward this moral philosophy by noting: Darwin quibbled with this formulation. He distinguished between the general good or welfare of the community, and the general happiness, and embraced the former, but then conceded that since happiness is an essential part of the general good, the greatest happiness principle indirectly serves as a nearly safe standard of right and wrong. He was, for practical purposes, a utilitarian.

154 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n To this stamp of approval from Darwin, Wright adds, the argument for a utilitarian morality can be put concisely: widely practiced utilitarianism promises to make everyone better off, and so far as we can tell, thats what everyone wants. Furthermore, Wright argues that to live by such a moral system would generate a positive, non-zero sum return on ones physical, mental, and emotional investment; that is, everyone would benefit from the deal. For example, if a society of people were convinced to act fundamentally from a sense of mutual consideration for the other person or group with whom they interactsay, for instance, everyone opens the door for everyone else without exceptionsuch an effort would make for a better life and would be worth the trouble to make happen. Granted, opening doors for others isnt going to change the world, but the underlying attitude of mutual respect, common purpose, and brotherly love, can. From the viewpoint of evolutionary biology, Wright suggests the good news is that, as he believes, most people who clearly understand the new Darwinian paradigm and earnestly ponder it, will be led to greater compassion and concern for their fellow human beings; or at least toward the admission, in moments of detachment, that greater compassion and concern would seem to be in order. And while were on the subject of good news, it is interesting to note that Wright quotes John Stuart Milla 19th century philosopher and renowned advocate for utilitarianismto compare this moral view with the one found in the roots of Christianity: In the Golden Rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility; to do as one would be done by, and to love ones neighbor as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. According to Harris, Wright, and Darwin, then, and to the same extent biologists Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion and philosopher Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, contrary to religious assertions that there can be no morality without a God, an atheistic worldview can be consistent with a moral imperative for being loving and compassionate to all of humankind and, indeed, to any and all beings that in some sense are capable of experiencing pleasure and pain, regardless of the exact type of moral system which is adopted. There is no argument here against this point, for as we have been discussing, our ability to rise above our selfish tendencies to live as compassionate beings is not a proclamation of faith, but clearly a biological fact.

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 155 Yet, while the scientific evidence supports the atheists claim to share the same moral ground as everyone else, it is important to note that just because it is not necessary to have a morality based in a god, doesnt mean that it is not plausible or even viable to have one. However, as each author above would argue, and you can throw in Christopher Hitchens, the late author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, the mythic God of our Western religions certainly seems to get in the way more often than not. Either way, I, for one, am more than willing to work with any atheist who wants to reduce sentient suffering on our planet. Such a noble cause can certainly be a cornerstone for building a shared sense of compassion, which is what we ultimately need to bring real, positive change to a world burdened with too much personal hatred, social injustice, and inequity of power and wealth. For it is time that we as a country and a species tap into the great reservoir of DIVINE LOVE at the very core of our being, and use it to manifest real change and transformation in our society and ourselves. In A Spirituality Named Compassion, Matthew Fox suggests that in the world today compassion remains an energy source that goes largely unexplored, untapped, and unwanted. Compassion appears very far away and almost in exile. He goes on to make the following observations about the current state of compassion on our planet, a time when we desperately need it to thrive and to survive: What makes injustices so unacceptable in our time is the fact that we now possess the know-how to feed the world and provide for all its citizens. What is lacking is the will and the way. What is lacking is compassion. In acquiescing in compassions exile, we are surrendering the fullness of nature and of human nature, for we, like all creatures in the cosmos, are compassionate creatures. All persons are compassionate at least potentially. What we all share today is that we are victims of compassions exile. The difference between persons and groups of persons is not that some are victims and some are not: we are all victims and all dying from the lack of compassion; we are all surrendering our humanity together. In America, a self-proclaimed Christian nation by many compatriots, one might have expected that the followers of Jesusarguably one of the most compassionate human beings to have ever walked this earth, would have established a nurturing

156 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n environment for the development of a deeply selfless country. Yet, even with the acknowledgement of our admirable displays of compassion in times of great need for our family, friends, and neighbors, we find ourselves spiritually withering from the relative lack of mutual respect and brotherly love in the day-to-day, mundane relationships that occupy much of our lives, not to mention its noticeable absence in many of our relations with our neighbors around the world. But when you consider the centuries of often repressive and ignorant leadership in the Christian religion since the time Jesus was crucified, it is not so hard to understand this disappointing situation. As Matthew Fox points out about his research for A Spirituality Named Compassion, The word compassion has been so much in exile in Christian circles that in the first thirteen major theological encyclopedias of both Protestant and Catholic origins that I have investigated only one had an entry under the word compassion. While the Christian churches have been obsessing with the exact statement of faith and the immutable moral code for getting into heaven post mortem, they have in many ways missed the mark regarding imitating Jesus unconditional love and compassionate behavior towards his fellow human beings in the here and now on our precious planet. In short, the hypocrisy of the Christian ideal of brotherly love relative to the lack of Christ-like compassion in our country is a serious challenge to our present and future welfare as a nation. In light of the these circumstances, anyone who is interested in bringing compassion home from exile by reclaiming it as a natural instinct and a moral virtue beyond the domain of any one religious authority is welcome to join the effort to findand then pursueways by which we can make this happen. We start, though, by overtly acknowledging that we are, fortunately, not totally void of compassion within our borders today, for there are many AmericansChristian and non-Christian, alikethat live with the right faith and moral integrity to incarnate the virtues of love and compassion in real and important ways. So lets always remember to recognize and honor the many good and loving people in our midst who areagainst the selfish current of mainstream societycourageously serving our common good as doctors, lawyers, teachers, students, priests, ministers, business leaders, journalists, politicians, musicians, artists, social workers, volunteers, public servants, and the like. Whether known or unknown, these are the true everyday heroes bringing peace and justice into our world for the sake of their fellow brothers and sisters, and deserving of our sincere gratitude for their selfless contributions. For it is in

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 157 the hearts of these very human beings that the true potential of our humanity shines its brightest and refuses to be banished behind the accumulating clouds of confusion that occupy the mind of so many. Indeed, it is in the human HEART that we find all authentic hope for the future of our country, as well as for all humankind. The good news is that although exiled in many places, compassion has not been defeated, as the good people in the world remind us every day. And so, we greatly appreciate all those amongst us in whom the flame of compassion burns strong; may their LOVE LIGHT continue to shine brightly so as to illuminate the Statue of Libertys guiding torch and serve to enlighten the path to a better tomorrow for those in pursuit of the America Dream.

B ALANCING M ALE J USTICE WITH F EMALE C ARE

To wrap up, lets be clear that this call for compassion to return from exile in the shadows of our collective soul and to become a recognized American value is nothing less than voicing the need to bring the feminine aspects of our humanity into balance with our overly masculine ideas and attitudes, which have dominated our national history, particularly in the development of our sense of moral identity. Without delving too deeply into this archetypal dynamic between the Matriarch and the Patriarch in our collective unconsciousone that is played out on every continent and in every community worldwide, suffice it to say that the relative absence of women in our political system during our formative years, and continued throughout most of our history, has likely contributed to our current state of moral imbalance as a nation. For example, the ethics of carevs. the so-called ethics of justiceis a theory inspired by the work of psychologists Carol Gilligan that views female moral development as the decline of a womans egocentric concern and the expansion of her circle of care and compassion through three stages, known as selfish, care, and universal care. In A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision for Business, Politics, Science, and Spirituality, Ken Wilber summarizes this natural widening of concern from self-interest to broad compassion as follows: At first, the young girl cares mostly for herself; then she can care for others as well (such as her family and friends); and finally, she can extend her concern and well wishes to humanity as a whole

158 | O n e D i v i n e N a t i o n Each higher stage does not mean that you stop caring for yourself, only that you include more and more others for whom you also evidence a genuine concern and compassion. Here we see why feminine imagery has often been closely associated with the spiritual life: when healthy, both follow a similar path of transformation from selfconcern to a universal care and compassion for others. However, Wilber also notes that, males go through the same general stages [of moral development], althoughthey usually emphasize rights and justice more than care and relationship. In short, whereas justicethe intent to make things rightis the domain of the masculine, compassionthe intent to make things betteris the province of the feminine, though each develops along a common path from selfconcern as a child to the concern of self and others as a healthy adult. From this perspective then, the challenge before us is not just about bringing our masculine and feminine traits into balance, but also encouraging the healthy maturation of each towards a wider and more inclusive circle of concern. To be clear for those few who may fear the ethics of care is more about justifying a feminist political agenda than good science, the goal is not to swing to a Matriarchal extreme in a knee-jerk reaction to our Patriarchal past; it is to bring more women to the table and to promote an interchange of mind and heart so we think, feel, and act with a more balanced and well-honed perspective. And yes, weve certainly made progress in this area during the twentieth century, but we are still far from where we need to be to best represent the concern and will of American women. For all indications are that we are still quite a ways from acting as a fully mature, just, and compassionate nation, as our sense of care and the importance of relationships pales significantly compared to our sense of justice and the importance of being right. Fortunately, again, deep within our human nature is genetic code that enables the capacity for both compassionate and just living, which means we only need to nurture and develop that which already exists within us to transform our lives and our nation for the betterment of all. Unfortunately, however, we evolved to survive and live in a world very different than the one in which we now find ourselves; as such, our brains are programmed in ways that dont necessarily serve the best interest of our awakening moral sensibilities, but rather our reflexive and selfish needs. Indeed, although we can appreciate the mythology of the Garden of Eden, we dont need to accept it as historical fact in order to see that we humans are by nature sinful animals; we instinctually act in ways counter to our higher

A R e t u r n f r o m E x i l e | 159 calling to live as compassionate beings. It is to the dark, shadowy side of our human nature, and to the root of all manifest evil on Earth, that we now turn.