Oneness and Globalization

Well, I find I have a few more thoughts to share about yesterday’s post.


So, my concern about the state of this country (USA) and its politics is both immediate and pressing and is also characterized by an overarching feeling of hope and confidence that all will be well, no matter what happens. I’ll explain further on.

Several of the Blog comments about the 1948 cartoon, “Make Mine Freedom,” have to do with the supposed religion upon which this country’s philosophies and organizational documents were founded. Most of the comments have been about Christianity being the foundational religion of America. First, this isn’t true; it was “freedom of religion” that was one of the greatest ideas behind the founding of this country, not Christianity, itself. [Granted, probably what the founders most wanted was to give themselves the freedom to practice (or not practice) their own brands of Christianity but the philosophical idea of religious freedom to practice or follow ANY faith tradition was, nonetheless, what we ended up with.]

Second, the Christianities that were practiced in this land during our foundational decades were not the same Christianities that have evolved into today’s smorgasbord of Jesusisms – or perhaps Christianisms – which run the gamut from “Jesus is God, Read the Bible” to “WTFWJD?” and everything imaginable in between. Third, I hate to bring this up again but…Jesus was Jewish, not Christian. His religious texts were the Hebrew scriptures and it was these and the Jewish faith – as practiced in his own lifetime – that were the subject of his teachings. Any interpretations of his teachings beyond this fundamental context are, by definition, generalized speculations. Yet, it is these generalizations and speculative interpretations upon which most of this and all past eras’ various Christianities are based.

Finally, let us not forget the legal and ethical separation of church and state which, while it is a worthy subject of discourse, is beyond the scope of this particular essay to discuss in any depth. (If you are interested in the origins of the idea check out Wikipedia’s articles on the subject, just to begin with.) Nevertheless, the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is the principle which upholds the idea of religious freedom in this country. There is no government mandate about which religion is “right” or even “best.” There is no national religion. Please, no matter how well-meaning you are, stop trying to make Christianity the official religion of the United States of America, folks; when you do so you are treading upon the toes of our Constitution and trying to withdraw the rights of more than 50% of legally recognized Americans who are not practicing some form of Christianity.

I think the cartoon in question admirably addresses religious freedom in this country. It also portrays the religious conformation of the family as being the purview of the archetypal 1950’s era stay-at-home housewife and mother which I find very interesting. While in mainstream Christianity women were (largely) not allowed to hold religious office it was still the mother who was held accountable for the spiritual and moral nurture and guidance of society. This was because the mother’s primary role was, of course, childbearing and the rearing of said offspring. This was also why most working women were either teachers or nurses as both of these professions quite naturally, it was supposed, sprang from the innate abilities of women as mothers.

In the 70+ years since this cartoon was released society has changed; I think for the better but even some women would disagree with me. Women are, for the most part, now afforded near-equality with men in today’s society. We certainly have the ability to choose for ourselves what roles we will play in the workforce, our families and our communities and we often have the freedom to change our minds in the midst of whatever we are doing and change direction, as well. I will only briefly mention the fact that this new set of freedoms for women has resulted in a couple of young generations that have difficulty orienting themselves with regard to their own roles in society because I think this situation is in the process of balancing itself. There is always a price to be paid for freedom. Increasing the social freedoms of women left the children of those women with less guidance than that of previous generations but those children are now grown and learning from their own and their parents’ experiences and are deciding for themselves how to guide the next generations without compromising (as much) the social, political, philosophical and civil liberties of either women or men. The process is not without pain and frequently uncomfortable adjustment but I believe the result will be well worth the trials and tribulations we have experienced over the last fifty years and will continue to deal with to lesser and lesser degrees in the coming decades.

I thought that the cartoon’s portrayal of our classrooms was also outstanding for that era in that an attempt was made to show the integration of the public school system while it was still largely an idea and not a reality at that time. Integration is still an issue due to the lack of equity between schools in rich and poor neighborhoods and unfortunately this issue of economic and social class is also still, foundationally, an ethnic issue. [I use the term “ethnic” instead of race because all human beings are of one “race.” Ethnicity also encompasses the idea of languages and cultures of origin; while one’s physical traits may match those of another there can still be distinct differences in language and culture. Skin color alone does not denote one’s ethnicity and it certainly does not relegate one to a race other than human. It is these constructs of difference with which we still grapple in many aspects of our society. Yet, while the struggle is painful it is not without its satisfaction, as well. Were we not Americans we might not have the freedom to engage in the debate at all.] It is also unfortunate that there is an entire generation of children of immigrants to this country right now who will not be as well educated as those generations before them because they are reviled by certain Americans who would, because of the color of their skin or their languages and cultures of origin, deny them the right to full citizenship and would throw them out of their own country.

Yes, boys and girls, these children’s parents or grandparents or long-ago-ancestors are from Mexico or from Latin America or the Middle East or China or Africa or Taiwan or the Philippines or any other place on the face of the planet where a person’s skin color may be different than that of persons whose ethnic origins are largely Western European. The following illustration is a distribution of global skin colors from a 2000 Encyclopedia Britannica article.

This is a massive generalization, however, of skin color tone by ethnic region and does not represent the number of people from certain regions who are living elsewhere. The next illustration is taken from the 2000 US Census information. It shows that there are still about three quarters of the regions (not the overall populations) of the United States that are occupied by people who are predominantly of Western European origin. It does not show, however, what concentrations of the entire population of the US are of which ethnic origins. In those states with people predominantly of some other ethnic origin the populations are generally much higher per square mile than in those states with predominantly Caucasian ancestors. It also shows how few truly “native” Americans there are left in this land which once was theirs and from whom Western Europeans took not only the land but very nearly wiped out the peoples and cultures altogether.

(click on the picture for an enlargement)

So, while Caucasian skin color is still predominant in the United States it is changing. The above only illustrates the majority ancestral origins of people living in those counties and states. It does not show the actual skin pigmentation of the people who have intermarried and/or produced offspring. It cannot take into account the number of people from other countries, particularly Mexico, who had been used to traveling back and forth across the US border but were effectively trapped in this country when we closed the borders after September 11, 2001. The children of those immigrants were born here and have full rights as United States Citizens. They also have darker skin than those of German or French, English or Irish ancestry. My guess is that the complexions of people in this country are swiftly “browning” and that the white-dominant racism that has held sway over the economic classes of the US is about to reorient dramatically. This means that the philosophies and politics of the United States of America are about to reorient, as well.

Can we stop the reorientation? Not likely. Can we, who have had the privileges afforded us by white-dominated education, culture and economics influence and guide it? To some degree; but only if we do so from the standpoint of helping the next generations to be knowledgeable and capable enough to make informed and educated decisions that will best serve this great country as it enters its next evolution. What form those decisions may take we can neither foresee nor control. What we can do is work now toward a more equitable society in which skin color and ethnic background are much less divisive, not more so. What we can do is work toward a society in which the haves and the have-nots are not so much determined by skin color and ethnic background but by the willingness a person has to work for the materials he earns and by the equitable availability of opportunities to do so.

I am not advocating socialism or communism (which are the two main "isms" that were being referred to in the cartoon). I am envisioning a new form of democracy and capitalism that is founded less on how much wealth and status an individual can accumulate and hoard but on how much overall wealth and status her citizens agree to share among themselves for the good of the country and of the world; a society in which a person’s worth is determined not by the accumulation of material goods or fame but by what she contributes to her family and community and by how he works to make the world a better, more fair, more just and kind place for all beings to live.

Now, there are those who commented on the cartoon who declared (in so many words) that “globalization” was the new evil we needed to combat. I would like to strongly suggest that if you are concerned about globalization you might want to first read up on the concept. Again, Wikipedia provides a great place to start such reading and self-informing. Those who have branded globalization as evil are probably alarmed by the paragraph directly preceding this one. However, what I described above is no different than the kind of society that teachers and masters like Moses and Jesus, Mohammed and Buddha advocated. For instance:

Buddha: Consider others as yourself.

Jesus: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Mohammed: Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.

The Talmud: What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is the whole of the Torah and the remainder is but commentary.

Egyptian Late Period Papyrus: That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.

Epicurus: Neither harm nor be harmed.

Confucius: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. [http://www.artofdharma.org/?p=2044]

Wicca: Do as you will and harm none.

I am not at all original in my thinking that we must figure out how to love and take care of each other as an entire race. That means everyone. While we are at it we should include all other living beings and the planet, herself.

So, how do we accomplish this? We must let go of our fear. Jesus taught that the fear separation from God in the form of death was what kept us enslaved to sin. [The Sanskrit root of the word “sin” is “guilt.”] Buddha taught that fear of suffering actually brought it about. For the Jews it is fear of divine rejection and exclusion. Hindus fear separation from the divine in the form of ignorance. Muslims fear the separation from god in secularism. There are numerous other examples of this fear of separation from the divine. Some fear it so much that they deny the very concept of divinity, at all.

I cannot speak with a great deal of authority about the traditions of other teachers since the majority of my study has focused on the teachings of Jesus. I don’t talk about Jesus’ teachings because I think he is the only spiritual master who had it “right.” I talk about his teachings because they are the ones with which I am most familiar and most comfortable. I do study the teachings of other masters and I have found that his are the ones that most resonate with me. I have studied Jesus’ words and works not only from the Christian scriptures (a.k.a: the New Testament) but also from other sources, including the Nag Hammadi Scriptures (Gnosticism) and the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha. I am of the opinion that none of these sources, including the “gospels,” is entirely accurate and in fact, all may be largely inaccurate.

Since no one seems to have had a tape recorder rolling while Jesus taught and interacted with the people around him and none of those who actually knew him left any written accounts of his life and teachings [To date, there has been found no text about Jesus’ life or teachings that was written earlier than around 60 CE (“common era”). This is when the gospel of Mark is thought to have been written and we have some fragments of this text that date to some time in the late first century but nothing original. The earliest account of the sayings of Jesus may be a document which is called “Q.” This stands for the first letter in the German word “quella” which means “source” and we don’t have a copy of this document. In other words, Q is still a largely mythical source. The closest example of it is a copy of something called the Gospel of Thomas. We only have copies of Thomas that were probably penned sometime in the second or even third centuries. For an accessible, yet in-depth, treatment of this subject look to Burton Mack’s The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, published by HarperOne, 1994.] the followers of Jesus are required to interpret for ourselves what we have left of other’s interpretations of his words and deeds. Having thus given myself permission to do so, I claim only that what I write about Jesus’ teachings is my own interpretive opinion. There are those who agree and those who disagree with me. There are those with whom I agree and disagree, as well. What I will not do is try to draw parallels between Jesus’ teachings and the declarations of other faiths. If you feel familiar enough with the creeds of another faith or teacher that similarities between the ways in which I interpret Jesus’ wisdom and that of another tradition are apparent to you I warmly and enthusiastically invite you to enlighten me. In other words, if you are a follower of said tradition and feel comfortable interpreting it for me and other readers I welcome your input and hope you will comment frequently.

Nonetheless, it seems clear to me that most of what Jesus said and did resonates with the words and actions of the other great masters and teachers of our human journey and the biggest and most important concept for all of them was this: we cannot be separated from the divine. It is not possible for us – for any of creation – to be separated from whatever the source of Being is. (This is the fount of my own sense of hope.) Any indication to the contrary is false. Our individuality is not only our greatest gift but it is also our most elaborate delusion. This is supposed to be “good news” to us but for many it seems even more terrifying than the idea that we are somehow separate from god and on our own, so to speak.

We want to be independent and to be the “captains of our own destiny” and we want to be assured that nothing “bad” is going to happen to us. We want to be taken care of by some benevolent divinity and we want to be free to do things our own way. We want to try out everything there is to experience and we don’t want to get in trouble with god for it. We want to be loved unconditionally and we don’t want to believe we are that valuable because then we might have to treat each other that way. We want to be powerful and in control and we want to be able to blame someone else for the consequences of our decisions. I could go on but by now you must recognize the dichotomies I am pointing out. Of course, these are once again vast generalizations and they are also true for most of us at one time or another in our lives.

The bottom line is this; we don’t need to be afraid that there won’t be enough for ourselves if we consistently make sure there is enough for everyone else. When we do that together everyone has enough. “Well,” you say, “what about the guy who refuses to make sure everyone else has enough and hoards everything for himself?” Jesus taught us how to deal with him. “If anyone takes from you your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods do not ask for them again.” Luke reports that Jesus goes on to say, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also…. Do to others as you would have them do to you…love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for God is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as God is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.” I don’t know how that could be much more clear. What do we do with the guy who tries to take everything? Give him everything he tries to take. Then he isn’t taking anything, it’s a gift and he has everything he needs. You will have everything you need because someone else who is making sure that everyone else has everything they need is going to give you what you need. This is my dream for us as a planet. This is true “globalization.”

We must truly desire that everyone has everything that s/he needs and then go about providing that. Only in this way will we each have all that we need. We must truly desire that everyone is loved and cared for and in this manner we will be loved and cared for. It really is in our ultimate concern for each other that we are provided for. It is only in our fear and hoarding that everyone is cheated. It is only in our selfishness that everyone goes without something they need. “I have to provide for myself before I can provide for anyone else” is the backward way of looking at it. We all have to provide for the other or we won’t be provided for. It’s the reciprocity of the unity of all creation/existence that is the crux of the messages of the masters.

So, the idea of closing our borders and taking care of just ourselves here in America is really self-defeating. The idea of sending “them” back to their own countries is self-destructive. This is their country. We are their people. If we started treating everyone this way then the behavior would magnify and multiply until America was the most prosperous place in the world. Then when true globalization occurs we have something to offer and we get it all back, in return.

Let go of the fear that “they” will take what is ours. Give it away! It WILL come back in greater measure than what we give. Be not afraid. Be filled with the peace that passes all understanding in faith. Let go of everything about which you are anxious. Be free from worry. All is well. That’s the real message of Jesus. When this country embraces the Christianity I just described we will no longer have any enemies, whether from elsewhere or from amongst ourselves. As Walt Kelly quipped in 1970, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” We must learn to stop being our own worst enemy by imagining everyone else is an enemy. We must love each other and take care of each other. Can’t we just try it? What have got to lose? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. What we’ve been doing isn’t solving our problems and isn’t making things better. Let’s try something really different. Let’s do what the great teachers have said to do. Let’s follow directions for once; we just might get where we keep saying we want to go, as a country, as a people, as a race.

"That they may all be one."

Love,
Lora