President's Introduction of Rev. Sun Myung Moon at Honorary Degree Convocation University of Bridgeport

Bridgeport, CT
September 7, 1995

Honored Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is now my high honor to introduce the University of Bridgeport's newest honorary alumnus and its most important benefactor, Rev. Sun Myung Moon. I have known Rev. Moon since November 1976 when I attended my first International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences, ICUS for short, in Washington, DC. At the time, I was a Fellow of the National Humanities Institute of Yale University. Word had spread among my colleagues at Yale that I had accepted the invitation to attend. A prominent member of the Yale faculty invited me to lunch at Ezra Stiles College where he earnestly attempted to dissuade me from going. Finally, I asked the gentleman, "What concrete evidence do you have that I would be harmed or do harm by attending?"

"Haven't you read the newspapers?" he replied.

"Don't you realize that I am a theologian and an historian of religion, trained at Harvard in the scientific study of religion, and that I might be better able to understand a new religious movement than the vast majority of media reporters? I am going to find out for myself," was my response.

I did find out for myself. That meeting of ICUS was one of the finest international scientific conferences I have ever attended. I want to stress the abiding importance of my vocation as an historian of religion in my participation in activities and institutions sponsored by organizations supported by Rev. Moon from that day to this, including meetings of the ICUS, the Professors World Peace Academy, the World Media Conference, the Summit Council for World Peace, the Assembly of the World's Religions, the Inter Religious Federation for World Peace, and the Women's Federation for World Peace. Both Dr. Betty Rubenstein and I are grateful for the intellectual and spiritual enrichment we have derived from listening to and learning from scientific, scholarly and theological colleagues from every continent and every major religion.

The extraordinary effort and expense involved in these activities and institutions are the fruit of a unified and unifying religious vision, the pursuit of world peace for humanity as one family under God. For example, at the meetings of the World Media Conference, journalists have been called upon to consider the moral responsibilities appropriate to their vocation; at the International Conferences on the Unity of the Sciences, scientists and philosophers have been asked to reflect on the role of absolute values in their respective disciplines; at the Assemblies of the World's Religions, religious leaders of every tradition have been brought together to work for inter-religious fellowship and understanding in the global village. In sum, leaders in science, government, religion, journalism and scholarship have all been asked to transcend the confines of their respective professions and work together for the radical improvement of humanity.

I must confess that, as an historian of religion, I have found those occasions on which Rev. Moon has shared his understanding of his mission with those in his presence to be among the most extraordinary moments of my entire career. That understanding has been based upon a revelatory experience that he has characterized as "astonishing and fearful." By contrast, for myself and for most of my peers whose vocation is the scientific study of religion, awesome religious inspiration is something that happened, if at all, long ago. We are most comfortable studying derivative accounts of religious inspiration and revelation in books and manuscripts. Engaged in this labor, we are interested in our subject matter; we are calm; we are dispassionate and without inner disturbance. The situation is radically transformed- indeed, it is, as Rev. Moon has said, truly "astonishing"-when we are confronted by an inspired religious leader whose vocation is in the process of unfolding in our own time and even before our very eyes. We are not accustomed to such a manifestation of spiritual power and charisma. Our scientific and professional training has not prepared us for the encounter. Hence, we guard ourselves against it by inventing psychological categories to neutralize its potency as well as our discomfort before it. Nevertheless, the spiritual power is there and, whatever may be the religious tradition in which we are rooted, we feel it. Of one thing concerning Rev. Moon's self-understanding I am certain: all of his works, from which the world has already derived so much benefit, have sprung from that vision. Without it, there would be no ICUS, no PWPA, no Washington Times, no Assembly of World Religions, and certainly no revivified University of Bridgeport.

The University of Bridgeport is a non-sectarian institution. We are proud of the fact that every one of the world's major religions, including Judaism, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism, is represented among our students and faculty. The free expression of every religious faith is welcome on our campus.

Rev. Moon: In the spirit of the highest regard for you, our benefactor, and in loyalty to our own religious traditions, we respectfully await your message as one of the world's most renowned religious leaders.

Richard L. Rubenstein

Interview With The Author Of Angels Bar & Grill, Richard Panzer:

UNews: Why did you write angels bar & grill?

RP: There are a lot of issues I struggled with as a college student many years ago. I wished at that time that someone could have given me some clear guidance. It would have saved me many headaches and I could have avoided hurting some other people, too. This comic book is my attempt to discuss important issues in a somewhat entertaining way.

Last year, I gave a presentation called After the Sexual Revolution at Yale University where I completed my undergraduate degree. Several students came up to me afterwards and shared their struggles and opinions regarding the results of extramarital sex.

One student who was in his second year explained that he and his girlfriend had gotten sexually involved very early in their relationship. The results, he said, had not been very good. She had just dropped out of school and he was about to do so, too. There were other students who said that this was the first time they'd ever heard this type of message (pro-monogamy, pro-marriage) on campus. A few argued with me but seemed to enjoy being challenged.

UNews: Where did you get the idea for the comic book?

RP: I've been researching the area of sexuality and family breakdown for several years now. I got the idea of doing a comic book which revolved around Jack Kerouac, the 50s "beat" writer, someone I read in college, admired and was influenced by. He was a founder of the "beat generation" which was a forerunner to the counterculture of the 1960s. More recently I read a biography of his life and realized how contradictory his life was.

He expressed a lot of energy, openness to the world around him and idealism in his writing, but at the end of his life ended up as an alcoholic. He'd also had a child with his first wife but soon divorced. He denied being the girl's father and only began to send small amounts of support after she was 12 years old.

I thought he was a good representative of the confused and contradictory babyboomer generation which incorporated many of his ideas and that by exploring his life, college students would be able to reflect on how his ideas ultimately had bad outcomes.

UNews: What about the other characters in the comic book such as Malcolm X, Marilyn Monroe, and Sigmund Freud?

RP: I was talking with some friends, Bill Hilbert and John Williams, to get their input for the comic book. Someone mentioned Malcolm X and Marilyn Monroe and I thought it might be a lot of fun to have the comic book be a discussion, no, a debate or argument between these characters. I went to the library and read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and parts of some biographies about Marilyn Monroe.

It became more and more clear that Malcolm X would provide a foil to Jack Kerouac, a clear, strong, sometimes judgemental voice. My view of Malcolm X previously was that he was a black radical who thought all whites were the devil, but the more I reflected on his life and words I realized that his thinking went through many changes.

In any case, after his conversion to Islam, he was very serious about sexual purity. After his marriage to Betty Shabazz he continued to travel and to speak all over the country and later he traveled to Mecca. The FBI was following him and tapping his phone, so they had a pretty clear idea about his personal lifestyle. Even they remarked how faithful he was to his wife and devoted to his daughters. In that respect, he provides a very good example.

Marilyn Monroe, of course, married and divorced several times, had many affairs and committed suicide. I felt some sympathy for her because she never knew her father and because she seems a somewhat pathetic, exploited figure as a socalled "sex goddess." I wondered, "if she could come back from death, what would she tell us?"

As for Sigmund Freud, he is one of the key thinkers of the 20th century whose ideas about the sex drive (libido) and sexual repression as the source of neurosis have had a great impact on the popular culture. After reading some of his writings, I realized that he never advocated a sexual revolution and even moderated some of his contempt for religion because he saw the need to teach people about unselfish love.

UNews: Where'd you get the idea for angels bar and grill as the setting for the comic book?

RP: Originally, I was thinking to have Jack Kerouac and his friends travel around the country as his characters do in his books, but then I thought about all the college bull sessions I took part in that occurred in some diner or local hangout. Diners were the only place you could stay in for hours without ordering anything more than a cup of coffee. So the comic book is a kind of homage to diners as a "mecca" for would-be philosophers that all my friends and I aspired to be in college.

Interview with Michael Marshall, Executive Editor, The World & I

by Elisabeth Seidel

Q. How do you come up with such a classy magazine every month?

A. When we were launching the magazine in 1985, most publishing professionals we talked to said it was simply impossible to maintain quality in a magazine of this size-and of course we were even larger then, 700 pages. I think back then we did not know any better. We did not know whether it could be done, but we did not know it could not be done. We knew Father wanted it done so we just pressed ahead and tried.

In the early days it was sometimes a question of "If it is a manuscript we will publish it," but now we have a lot of resources to draw upon. We have the ICUS and Professors World Peace Academy scholars, many of whom have written for us or acted as advisers. Prof. Kaplan, the editor-in-chief, is a constant source of ideas and stimulation and is very committed to the magazine pursuing the founder's vision.

At the beginning, each editorial section had a group of advisers, many of them scholars, who reviewed the magazine and suggested improvements. Over the years we have built up a network of writers, many of whom act as informal advisers. Also, since last September we are in the same building as The Washington Times, so there is a lot more stimulation coming from speaking to writers at the Times or at Insight magazine. All in all, we have plenty of sources of stimulation.

Q. 450 pages (350 since July), seven different sections on "Current Issues," "Natural Science," "Book World," "Culture," "The Arts," "Life" and "Modern Thought." Why an encyclopedic magazine? Who are your readers and what is your vision?

A. We have a small but select readership. Teachers, professionals, educated people who want some meat in their reading and want to be able to keep abreast of developments in different areas without subscribing to many magazines. Over 90% of our readers are college- educated and around half have done graduate work. We seem to do well in the 40s/50s age group and encourage those people also to look on the magazine as a resource for their high school and college-age kids.

The magazine is also read on Capitol Hill and in many of the Washington think tanks.

The encyclopedic character of the magazine is a conscious attempt to buck the trend to ever-greater specialization. We want people to be able to learn about many subjects in one source, but not just as a convenience like one stop shopping. The magazine is intended to be a forum where the reader can reflect on interconnections: of the different countries and cultures of the world; or politics, public policy and morality; of art and social values; of education, the family and contemporary culture.

We want to help our readers to see the big picture. We want to offer them a worldwide perspective. And we want to give them in-depth understanding of the events that flash in and out of the news headlines. To that end, we offer the insights of scholars, but in a journalistic package that is attractive and readable. And behind it all, we want to present issues in a values perspective. How will an issue affect the reader and the reader's family? What choices should be made here to bring about the good life, the good society?

Q. Are teachers using the "Teachers' Guide" which accompanies the magazine each month? How does it help their classes?

A. We send out about 4000 copies of the guide each month to teachers. I think it is used quite extensively, especially by English and Social Studies teachers. Just recently one of our editors went out to Idaho to address the statewide convention of social studies teachers. They use the magazine to supplement the regular textbooks. The guide provides them with stimulating questions and projects relating to the articles, and the articles are thought-provoking and have real substance. They stretch the kids, make them think, without being too technical. A lot of material for schools is really dumbed down these days.

Q. I gave a World & I Christmas gift subscription to my children's English teachers last year. My son came back from school done day saying, "Mom, my English teacher had the magazine on his desk and liked it so much that he wanted the whole class to have it! He talked about it, saying it was the best American magazine he ever saw!" What kind of impact are you hoping to have on education for high school and college students?

A. Well, we really just want them to become familiar with the vision of the magazine. To be exposed to good writing that examines the different sides of a question. To consider good argument, rather than rhetoric. To have a sense of values which transcends nation and race, which is critically important both at home and abroad in these times. To develop a sense of social responsibility, of being able to make a difference, and to reflect on the values needed to sustain such a sense and make it effective.

Q. What happened to the section on special people with special deeds? No more heroes?

A. We certainly will continue to have heroes in the magazine. Although its character is somewhat scholarly, I think human interest stories and inspirational examples are tremendously important. So even though the separate photo essay is no more, the "Life" section will still present such heroes. In our December issue, we have the story of Father Damien of Molokai, the priest who ministered to the leper colony in Hawaii and became a leper himself.

Q. Edwina Lawler, the associate dean at Drew University, said: "By virtue of its breadth, coverage and illustrations, The World & I brings the beauty and complexity of human endeavors and institutions closer to readers in all age groups, providing a treasure for private reading and family discussions, and a marvelous resource for school projects." Please comment.

A. I couldn't have said it better myself. The World & I is not a normal magazine. It is a wonderful reference and resource. It can be used by the whole family as well as for school projects.

Q. What can the general public do to be heard if they have something to say?

A. Write a letter to the editor. We are always anxious to hear from readers, particularly with comments on specific articles. We would like our letters pages to become more of a forum for debate between readers and contributors than they are already.

Q. What are your challenges as executive editor?

A. I see two challenges that are faced by all of us who work here. The first is getting the magazine more widely known and discussed so that it can make the impact it should. The great majority who see it think it is wonderful and that really there is nothing like it. But not enough people know about it.

The second is not to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Not to get so swept along in the everyday tasks of producing the magazine that we stop actively and aggressively engaging with the vision of the magazine in each month's contents.

Q. What is your best memory at The World & I?

A. The World & I has been a roller coaster ride, so there are many unforgettable moments. One important memory is having some of the people at The Washington Times and other places, who thought the magazine was a foolhardy idea doomed to ignominious failure, congratulate us later on doing what they thought could never be done.

Most important, though, is the sense from Father, on his few visits to the magazine, of his quiet certainty that this "impossible" project was in fact possible, and then pulling off what he, and only he, believed could be done.

Q. Is there such a thing as team unity for the success of the magazine?

A. Obviously no project can succeed without unity. There are many unique characters on our staff and over the years we have often struck sparks off one another. Sometimes those sparks have kindled nice fires which warmed us and lit our path, and at other times they have threatened to burn the house down.

Also, there are degrees of unity. Right now we are working to have the different editorial sections work together on more interdisciplinary projects, rather than be seven little magazines within one big magazine. So you should see the results of that in upcoming issues with more special sections that are magazine-wide.

Q. What are your dreams?

A. When I was younger, I was trying to decide whether my vocation lay in journalism or in the academic world. The World & I offered me a way to pursue both. Prof. Kaplan said, "Rev. Moon is absolutely right. America needs a magazine like The World & I. The problem is most people don't realize they need it." My dream as an editor here is to see that change.

I don't just mean that I would like to see the publication I work for be more successful. I mean that I would like to see more people understand the message that it is trying to convey. I see many disturbing parallels between contemporary American society and the late Roman empire. The balkanization of society along ethnic and class lines, the loss of shared public purposes and public responsibility. Too often what passes for education is failing young people, leaving them deficient in moral character and weak in their ability to reason.

Beyond a certain point, such trends will have far-reaching consequences that may take generations to reverse. I see myself and my colleagues as playing a small role in a moral, cultural and spiritual battle that is being waged for America's soul. My dream is to win that battle.

Q. Did you do your Christmas shopping yet or are you going to send gift subscriptions of The World & I? The first issue arrives gift- wrapped with the name of the donor on a card with holiday greetings. Isn't that a nice present to give?

A. Absolutely. I will definitely be giving gift subscriptions. It is a wonderful present especially for families with older children. Also, what a fine introduction to the broad scope of our movement, our community, and the noble character of Father's vision!

ICUS Marks 20th Conference in Seoul at 2nd WCSF

by Gregory Breland-Lexington, KY

The most recent International Conference on the Unity of the Sciences (ICUS) which occurred from August 22-25, 1995 in Seoul, Korea as part of the 2nd World Culture and Sports Festival, was the twentieth such conference since its inception in 1972. About 150 scholars from various disciplines participated with many friendships being made and renewed. One of the often asked questions about this kind of conference centers on its cost and its overall benefit to the Unification Movement and society as a whole.

Just to mention some of the benefits that come from our association with ICUS professors, let me mention the following: Often those introducing Father or Mother on their recent speaking tours have had their first connection with the movement through ICUS; Father's recent tour of South America was aided by academics affiliated with ICUS and enabled him to meet various country presidents and other important political figures; Many of those on the board at the University of Bridgeport come via ICUS; When Father has made various proclamations in newspapers, many of those who have been asked to support it have been ICUS-related professors. And, of course, the discussions have helped bring the question of values into the scientific arena, where they have long been vacant.

To those who wonder about the significance of this work, it is hoped the above short explanation has been reassuring. The plenary sessions and each of the seven committees will be reviewed in this report. The theme of this conference was Absolute Values and the Unity of the Sciences: The Origin and Human Responsibility.

Conference Chairman's Welcoming Address

At the Opening Plenary Session, Dr. Tor Ragnar Gerholm, conference chairman and Emeritus Professor of Physics at Stockholm University, gave his remarks. He noted that strife, strike and struggle are words that readily come to mind when thinking about the last three years since ICUS met in Seoul in 1992, marred by warfare and atrocities in all quarters of the world.

Yet, he admonished us, we must not despair. Ever since the first ICUS in New York in 1972 the Founder has insisted that the invited participants consciously and seriously address one or the other, or both, of the two recurrent themes of ICUS: the "Unity of the Sciences" and "Science and Values." The Founder feels that the scientists and scholars of the modern world can and must come up with answers and provide guidance not merely in sophisticated scientific issues and esoteric scholarly pursuits. They are obliged to shoulder the responsibility inherent in the enormous power and prestige of today's science and technology. This is possible, as the Founder has shown us, through the concept of unity of knowledge

In his Closing Plenary at the last ICUS Gerholm suggested "The Unity of the Sciences" must not be taken to imply that we are aiming at a Superscience, incorporating all other sciences as subfields and specialties. What ICUS is trying to achieve is something very different: a united action of autonomous disciplines. Thus promoting unity in the true academic sense: the quality of being one in spirit, a cognitive and emotional whole in short, a university.

Maybe, he noted, we have made a mistake in asserting that values or ethics have no place in our scientific discussions. Maybe it was wrong to tacitly assume that ethics, as a rule of order for human conduct, is a means to bring about moral behavior in creatures that otherwise would behave in a completely amoral way. In a complete reversal of this assumption, it is now being argued by philosophers such as Zygmunt Bauman and Emmanuel Levins for the case that morality precedes ethics! Moral behavior is primordial, implanted in humans as a weak and feeble potentiality which may never develop but nonetheless exists as a possibility.

The question is why? Could it be that this potentiality of moral behavior is inherited, part of our genetic code? Humans are, after all, more than ninety-nine percent genetically identical. It is conceivable that we inherit not merely our physical traits and mental abilities, including the ability to recognize human beings as like us, but also the ability to recognize moral behavior. Expressed in a secular language, this idea is not far from the religious idea that almighty God has given us the ability to distinguish good from evil and the capacity to do right.

Introduction of the Founder

The Founder of ICUS, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, was introduced by Nicholas Kittrie, Professor of Law, American University, Washington, D.C. In answer to the question of why Kittrie has affiliated himself with the Unification Movement and the Reverend Moon, his response has always been plain and simple. As a youth, he has been introduced to the Moslem Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, later met the Pope in Rome, and got to know the Chief Rabbi of Israel. But not even one of these three ever asked for his opinion, for his assistance, or for his participation. They all were too deeply immersed in their own missions, in their own institutions, their own faiths. It was in the Reverend Moon that Kittrie found for the first time a true ecumenical spirit, a fierce commitment to the unity of man, an unflinching love of all mankind, a full commitment to the institution of the family, the wisdom to blend the Occident with the Orient, an ability to combine eternity with a sense of timeliness, the talents to create a bridge between science and faith, the courage to wage warfare against escalating contemporary hedonism, and the divine as well as human gifts of humor and love of life. He concluded with the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson, America's most original, thoughtful and optimistic philosopher: "Institutions are, by and large, the lengthened shadow of one man ... and all history resolves itself very easily into the biography of a few stout and earnest persons."

Founder's Address: True Knowledge, True Family and World Peace

The Reverend Moon addressed a completely full ballroom of ICUS, Professors World Peace Academy (PWPA) and local guests of 500 people. He noted that the development of scientific knowledge and of civilization has, on the one hand, allowed people to enjoy an abundant life. But on the other hand, it has resulted in such global problems as the destruction of nature and the environment, global warming and the diminishing of the ozone layer. Serious problems have also arisen in relation to the human condition. In the process of industrialization and modernization, the family is being destroyed, and serious problems such as drugs and AIDS, violence and crime, warn us that humankind is facing a crisis.

Peace and human happiness depend on the moral and spiritual development of people. This is because world peace, or a peaceful nation, is comprised of individuals and families. Science and technical skill can be used for good for the improvement of human life when they are utilized by good people.

The Reverend Moon noted that he has taught about the establishment of a society of co- existence, mutual property and the common good. An ideal world means co-existing economically, prospering together politically, and, from an ethical viewpoint, creating a society of goodness. Co-ownership based on God's true love is the essence of the ideology of co-existence. The basic unit of a society of co-existence is the family. By co-ownership it is not meant ownership merely in relation to material possessions, but based on God's love. Even though all property would be legally held in the parents' names, in practice, it would be jointly owned by the whole family parents and children alike. At the same time, each family member might have his or her own room, clothes and personal money. In this way, joint ownership among family members would be based on the family, but individuals would still have their own property. Thus, the purpose of the whole and the individual would be harmonized. This ideal pattern of ownership in a family based on love would expand to the society, nation and world.

He went on to say that the goal here is not just to discuss the latest discoveries in physics, biology and chemistry. We must understand and discuss how such discoveries and academic achievements can benefit each individual and society as a whole, and how harmonious relation ships among humankind, the world, and the creation, can be realized. Professors not only teach theory but also instill students with character and values. As they have an important influence on the character formation and development of their students, they should guide and help them onto the path of goodness. Professors have a great deal of influence on young people. However, students are influenced even more by their parents. It is the family that exerts the most influence on the formation of an individual's character.

Plenary Address: The Unity of Man and Science

D.H.R. Barton, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1969), addressed the jointly assembled ICUS and PWPA audience. He is a distinguished professor of chemistry at Texas A&M University. He stated that for the past 40 years his main aim in science has been to invent useful reactions to aid in the synthesis of biologically important molecules. Chemical reactions are truly international and bind together all mankind. At a given temperature and atmospheric pressure, a reaction will proceed at the same rate in any part of the world independently of the political regime. This reaction is also independent of time and will proceed at the same rate in the future as in the present or in the past.

He noted that for the first billion years of life there was no oxygen in the world. Life depended on the reduction of sulfate to sulfide for energy. With the arrival of oxygen, produced by the photosynthetic activity of the blue-green algae about three billion years ago, the world changed dramatically. Much more energy could be obtained via oxidation and the evolution of multicellular life proceeded rapidly in the sea and then moved onto the earth.

He maintained that science, itself, has no moral stance. But, scientists are well aware of the moral implications of their work. The tremendous power given to man by science should be used with moral reason. The dangers that political ambition might overcome this moral reason constitutes a fearsome hazard that must unite all mankind in a crusade for peace. The principal danger is from the nuclear bomb, but with the collapse of the Soviet Union, this is very unlikely.

There is, he stated, another time bomb in our future, probably in the next century. This is the strong probability that molecular biology will be able to determine what causes the aging process and them remedy this cause. Already there is a theory that aging is produced by a simple deficiency in the replication of DNA in its final stages. If this is true, then application of the right enzyme would enable us to live forever or until some suitable accident killed us. Certain carp and the giant land tortoise may already have this enzyme. What a terrible fate for mankind this will be. Such is the power of the life wish for most forms of life, especially man, that we shall all become Fausts. Fortunately, the present audience is probably too old to worry about our destiny in a world of perpetual youth.

Plenary Address: The Challenge of the Information Society

Marcelo Alonso, Principal Research Scientist, Retired, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Florida gave his talk to a joint session of ICUS and PWPA participants. The rapid increase in the means of communication, that has taken place in the last 100 years, has increased considerably cultural interactions throughout the world, becoming a global phenomenon. As knowledge increases, old civilization evolve and change and new civilizations emerge. For knowledge to be effective and useful it must be transferred and disseminated and, when appropriate, used or applied to improve the quality of life, through the process of technological innovation, which in turn affects cultures. In other words, knowledge is a prime factor of cultural change.

On the positive side of the electromagnetic stage of the information evolution has been the facilitation of information by people at all levels and the exchanges of ideas among peoples in different parts of the world, thus contributing to their mutual knowledge. On the other hand, there has been the risk that electromagnetic information facilitates special interest groups or dictatorial regimes to manipulate, influence and even control the way people think and behave.

Alonso asserted that these new technologies have made it possible to amplify many times the power of the human brain, just as the steam and internal combustion engines multiplied many times the power of human and animal muscles. As this brain amplification has become available to more and more people, it has produced profound social and cultural impacts. Information technology has been aided by the development of quantum electronics, opto-electronics and digitalization.

C.P. Snow introduced in 1959 the idea of the existence of two cultures of global dimension. One is the scientific/technical culture composed by scientists and engineers that, while affecting the whole world with their ideas, research and actions, have very limited direct communication with the public. The second is the humanistic/literary culture composed of the much larger group of non-scientific intellectuals (writers, philosophers, religious leaders, lawyers) that have much more direct influence on the public in general and in a sense dominate the scene. Its members appeal to a variety of aspects of human nature such as values and responsibility, social and family issues, beauty and pleasure, art and poetry, justice and order, which are of immediate interest to most people. A serious consequence of the two cultures has been that, because their language and conceptual paradigms are different, the communication among the practitioners of both cultures has been minimal resulting in two parallel global cultures.

The rapid growth in diversity and importance of scientific research and technological innovation has forced decision-makers and the public to become aware of the scientific and technical issues facing modern society. The result has been the emergence of a third culture that I would define as those who can bring in a meaningful way the scientific culture to a broad audience. One of the most important factors contributing to the expansion of the third culture is the current infotec revolution. One of the reasons is the simplicity with which information can be exchanged all over the world, another is the variety of information, scientific and non- scientific, education and non-educational, and, thirdly, people are induced to use new technological innovations.

Instead of communication being one-to-one, with the internet communication can be many- to-many, in the sense that anybody having access to the net can use the information available or communicate with any others with access to the net. Also it does not matter with whom we communicate, but only the quality of the information transferred. We are even seeing the emergence of virtual communities, which are people separated geographically but sharing some common interest, that use computer-mediated-communication to interact, communicate and establish relationships. There is hope that this will promote trans-cultural relations and a danger that it will dehumanize human relations.

Committees

In addition to the Plenary Addresses there were seven committees that made up the ICUS.

Committee 1: Scientific Objectivity and Human Values

Committee 1 was chaired by Paul Badham, Dean of the Faculty of Theology at the University of Wales and the honorary chair was the world-renowned expert on the world's religions, Ninian Smart of the University of California. Over the past three hundred years it has been increasingly recognized that the scientific method and research are the best ways to determine issues of empirical fact. The implications of this for the study of human values has not yet been fully appreciated. There is abundant evidence that changing perceptions about issues of empirical fact have had a very significant impact on ethical beliefs and it would be good for this to be documented and its implications explored.

Committee 2: Genetic Knowledge, Human Values and Human Responsibility

Committee 2 was chaired by Jacquelyn Kegley, Outstanding Professor of Philosophy, California State University, Bakersfield, California. Recent developments in the science of Genetics and certain accompanying technologies such as genetic screening techniques and gene therapy present great promise for the prevention and possible cure of "genetic-based" diseases and thus for the relief of much human suffering. However, genetic science is still at the frontier in gaining knowledge about gene mechanisms and manifestations and there are many uncertainties associated with any application of genetic technologies in the human context. There is, in fact, mounting evidence that any deterministic linear and unique causality model is inadequate to the complexity and flexibility of human genetic mechanisms. The general lack of understanding by the public of genetic uncertainties and the tendency to great over-expectation concerning the promise of genetic technologies makes the ethical and public policy issues surrounding the use of genetic knowledge of crucial importance for general discussion from a wide range of perspectives.

Committee 3: Values and the Social Order: Order by Rules and Rules by Order

Chairman was Gerard Radnitzky, Professor of Philosophy of Science, Emeritus, University of Trier, Trier, Germany. The committee was a continuation with a different focus of the work of the committee with the same working title at the 19th ICUS. A social system involves a collection of agents, who organize themselves or are organized, into a certain organizational structure. Such a structure roughly corresponds to what Hayek calls an order . The friends of the Free Society will judge a social order according to whether it tends to promote private liberty (Samuel Johnson, but also such diverse thinkers as Burke, Jefferson, Madison, Hayek, and so forth). Before we can evaluate social orders we have to describe them in a way that is relevant for the evaluation. Particularly important are the distinction Voluntary (non-coercive) vs. Coercive orders (roughly, market vs. state) and the distinction Spontaneous vs. Constructed orders. Since the value position chosen gives priority to freedom, Voluntary Order is evaluated positively and Coercive Order negatively. Insofar as the distinction Spontaneous Constructed is based merely on the genesis, it is value-neutral. On the other hand, constructed order suggests a coercive element, which at least prima facie is morally suspect. Hence we can judge only from case to case. Qualifying as a spontaneous order is of course no guarantee that the order is non- coercive.

Committee 4: Science, Nature and the Sacred

This committee was chaired by Ravi Ravindra, Professor of Comparative Religion and of Physics, Dalhousie University, Halifax Canada. Much of the discussion in the committee revolved around the fundamental distinction of "having a religion" (or "believing in religion") and having a "religious mind" (or a "spiritual mind" or a "compassionate mind"). Although there were a few members who had a commitment to one or another specific religion, the majority in the committee were more interested in the religious mind. However, it is clear that the historical, social and institutional aspects of religion cannot be ignored. The very fact that such a committee is needed arises from a specific set of circumstances and situations in the history of Europe and of the Christian Church.

It was generally agreed in the committee that any activity whether it be Physics or Poetry or Pottery can be a way to relate with the Sacred if there is a right attitude involved. The major ingredient of this attitude is a freedom from self-centeredness and self-occupation which naturally leads to humility and inclusiveness. Also, all the member in the committee agreed that a life of the spirit and in the Spirit cuts across religions and sects, and that there are many levels of consciousness, and that a relationship with the Sacred is a mark of a higher level of conscious ness.

Committee 5: Re-Visioning the Aging Society: A Global Perspective

Chaired by Rick Moody, Brookdale Center on Aging, Hunter College, New York, New York this committee dealt with the topic of aging. Population aging denotes a rise in the average age of the population linked to an increased proportion of elderly people. It is a demographic transition arising under conditions of modernization involving decline in both death rates and birth rates. Population aging is a distinctive and historically unprecedented phenomenon of the 20th century, and it poses a far-reaching challenge to all sectors of society: family, religion, economy, the educational system, health care, and government. From a global perspective, the challenge is most evident in advanced industrialized societies of the North (North America, Western Europe, and Japan), while less developed countries of the South typically have younger populations. Population aging, therefore, has global and international dimensions, as well as implications for medical technology, intergenerational relationships, and economic development. An aging society, in the final analysis, represents a triumph of longevity and is a cause for celebration. But it also demands a new vision of the human future. The committee offered an interdisciplinary approach to an emerging global problem and responded to the ICUS theme of Science and Values. Whether in geriatric medicine or in pension policy, today we face difficult ethical choices in the allocation of resources: life-prolongation and euthanasia, taking care of young and old, and employment opportunities over the lifespan are only a few of the issues on the horizon. Neither technology nor public policy by themselves can resolve these troubling questions. Only by better integrating empirical findings from many fields and by considering old age as part of total lifespan development can we hope to respond to the challenge of an aging society.

Committee 6: In Pursuit of Beauty: The Biological Foundations of Aesthetics

This committee was chaired by Frederick Turner, Founders Professor of Arts and Humanities, University of Texas at Dallas, Dallas, Texas. The traditionally modernist (and post- modernist) view of art and beauty is that since they belong within the sphere of Geisteswissenschaft spiritual or mental knowledge they cannot be studied within the realm of Naturwissenschaft natural or scientific knowledge. The Platonic, Cartesian and Kantian division of the world into mental and physical still held true for C.P. Snow's two cultures; artists and scientists agreed on the separation, artists maintaining that their work was too lofty to be sullied by the materialistic, mechanistic and deterministic physical world, and scientists maintaining that the arts were a trivial fantasy useful only for passing leisure time.

However, this modernist (and post-modernist) picture has recently been undergoing a profound change. In a wide range of disciplines neuroscience, psychophysics, psychology, cultural and physical anthropology, literary theory and criticism, oral tradition studies, visual perception studies, mythology, infant and child development studies, and the evolutionary study of ritual among others a new approach to aesthetics is being explored. Chaos and complexity theory have demonstrated that most of the characteristics attributed by nineteenth-century philosophy of science to the physical universe linearity, theoretical predictability, mechanistic causality, and so on are true only of isolated and exceptional physical systems, and that much of the universe participates in complex nonlinear dynamical systems in which every part depends upon the behavior of the whole, the whole can be sensitively dependent on the behavior of the parts, and new and unpredictable forms of organization can emerge through spontaneous symmetry-breaking. These nonlinear features are especially characteristic of biological systems, and are so par excellence of the complex feedback processes of the nervous systems of higher social animals such as ourselves.

This new scientific paradigm provides a justification for renewing the great classical and renaissance project of the scientific study of aesthetics. A daring new group of interdisciplinary researchers in several fields have begun to ask some fundamental questions: why do human beings across the whole range of human cultures find certain objects, sounds, movements, stories beautiful? Why are the basic genres and forms of the arts culturally universal? What structures and functions of the human brain and sensorium underlie aesthetic experience and competence? Why do scientists report a strong aesthetic element in their research? Do more primitive forms of aesthetic experience and competence exist in nature? What technological, ecological, social or ritual developments might there be, that could provide the adaptive pressure by which our remarkable human aesthetic abilities evolved?

Committee 7: Towards the Harmony of Cultures

Chaired by Frederick Sontag, Professor of Philosophy, Pomona College, Claremont, California, this committee has considered a wide variety of questions and answers about achieving harmony among cultures today. This is especially important in a world which is increasing in violence and destructive conflict between cultured groups. Below are outlined some of the suggestions made by our paper writers:

Marcelo Alonso explored the information revolution and outlined the way in which the quantum leaps in technology both challenges us and makes possible changes which could improve society. Henry Bauer discussed the conflict which cultured stereotypes pose for us, and the way in which listening to individual voices and individual people can help us to overcome conflicts which stereotypes generate. Many of us witnessed the mass blessing in Seoul, and David Carlson told us how this event can promote harmony by using it as an educational paradigm for the children of the next generation. Helmut Fritzsche told us of his experience of radical change in Eastern Germany after the end of the Cold War and the hope that this offers ways to lessen cultural conflict by problem solving. Michael Higatsberger used his wide experience in the discussions over international disarmament to illustrate both the possibility of international agreement and the way in which this can be used as a model to resolve divisive issues.

Sangwhe Lee discussed cultural prejudice and the ways in which we can overcome these, as well as our need to avoid the distortion in mass media. Juha Pentikinen outlined our need to broaden our definition of religion and the categories we use to define it in order to avoid the narrowness that generates conflict due to exclusiveness. Hans Schwarz used historical understanding as an example of the way this can promote conflict or, alternatively, heal us rather than harm. Theodore Shimmyo used his analysis of current cultures as a basis to argue for the need for humility as a mean to achieve a universality centered on God and on living for the sake of others. Alexander Shtromas argued the need for agreement on some universal principles in order to avoid repeated national conflicts. Both Andrew Wilson and Sang Hun Lee argued for a Unificationist approach as a basis for the hope to avoid religious conflict and achieve harmony.

Gregory Breland is the Executive Director of ICUS

How to Start a Sunday School... Developing a Classroom Discipline Policy

by Vicki Henry-Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Sunday School Director

One point must be made clear from the beginning when talking about discipline. Discipline is not just a fancy world for punishment. These two have clear definitions which are totally opposite. In most recent times there has been much study as to how to stop children from doing "bad" and how to guide them towards doing "good"-moreover, how to motivate them to want to do "good". Along with that study has come evidence that violence can only perpetuate violence. Some people may pooh-pooh this and believe this study to be reflective of a permissive attitude. But I say: examine this study from the standpoint of Divine Principle.

Multiplication of sin is one of the four fallen natures, and I have discovered this one in particular can permeate every facet of our daily life. Its ramifications are not just in the immediate sense but reach into the continuation of past mistakes for generations. So many times I catch myself repeating the exact words and actions of my mother to my children-something I vowed I would never do, long before ever hearing Divine Principle.

Also the whole premise of the Four Position Foundation supports this very study. Parents should be examples of God's love for their children so that families of goodness may grow into a world of goodness. If the parents are centered on selfishness, this attitude will only be multiplied in their children, and then a dysfunctional family develops. It is from here that a world full of hate, greed, fear and anger develop. I have found that when I am only thinking about my own situation, I have less patience with my children and end up yelling more and neither really educating them nor providing a good example of a heavenly parent, environment or way of life.

Legal Points

The purpose of our Sunday service and Sunday school is not only for the education and spiritual nourishment of our own congregation, but it is to be an avenue for relatives, friends and guests to be introduced to God's true love and life. With this in mind, our church's legal department has directed Sunday school teachers to comply with the local and state laws concerning the physical abuse of children. They have said: "In recent years, `abuse' has come to be defined by state agencies very liberally. It is therefore suggested that Sunday school children not be physically disciplined." This is not only referring to children of guests, but to our own congregation's children as well.

Discipline as Spiritual Growth

Christianity has outlined personal growth into the following self- disciplines: poverty, obedience, chastity and humility. Indeed, anyone devoting their lives to God (e.g., monks and nuns) makes these their vows. Unificationism outlines these as they relate to Formation, Growth and Perfection, or Old Testament, New Testament and Completed Testament stages respectively.

I feel the many stages of child development can be outlined in the same manner, thereby corresponding to a particular "technique" of discipline. In the beginning, it is necessary just to keep your child safe from all the physical hazards in the home and daily life (falling down stairs, touching a hot stove, crossing the street, etc.) Much of this instruction is reminiscent of the Law in the Old Testament stage.

As the child grows and reasoning skills develop, the child can advance to the New Testament level of controlling their own desires. They have the foundation of knowledge to distinguish right from wrong. It is now up to them to fulfill that responsibility and make the correct choices.

As a child reaches his or her late teens and early adulthood, the conscience has developed to be able to think more about others and how to implement his or her belief into reality. They are reaching the stage of a true son or daughter ready to take on the role of parenthood for him or herself. This is the Completed Testament stage.

This process is called discipline. Discipline is not an effect. Jim Baughman, former president of the Unification Church in America, described discipline as "the process by which a person develops an ability or skill to the point of expertise. This process comes about through learning from and modeling after a teacher, coach, master or some other expert who guides and trains the person."

Hyun Jin Moon has also stated in his speech of March 28, 1993 entitled "The Importance of Family" that "we've seen the greatest example of what it means to be a teacher of true life, a teacher of True Love. That it is not just words, not just expressing yourself; it's actually living, setting the example."

Respect and Manners

By the time children are ready for Sunday school (i.e., Kindergarten- level), I feel they are beginning to enter that New Testament stage. Therefore, allowing them to understand the "whys" of all the rules is very important. One of the biggest "whys" deals with the issue of respect and having good manners. So it is not just stating "Don't run in church," but rather it is discussing with them all the reasons "why" we don't run in church. It is important to discuss the need for respect of the institution, the adults attending the church service, the other children in Sunday school and the way to be a child of Heavenly Father by not being rude.

It is amazing how well the Golden Rule always seems to apply when dealing with all kinds of situations and relationships. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"-simply put, it means: respect yourself, respect others, and respect the environment.

Good manners express that respect. Having good manners is a tool for each child.

In both of these it is not only the need for children to acquire them, but adults must embrace them as well. Adults must exhibit respect and good manners towards each other as husband and wife and as friends to others, as well as towards children. Children are deserving of our respect and good manners just as much as a fellow adult. It is through that action that you, the adult, are able to be the example and role model the children need.

The Classroom Plan

A classroom discipline plan should consist of the following:

1. Teachers need to be consistent with their requirements for behavior.

2. The rules need to be simple and kept to a reasonable number.

3. Children need to clearly understand the expectations.

4. Children have to learn to accept the responsibility for their behavior and accept the consequences of their actions.

5. Teachers must stay calm and not yell or lose control. When you lost control, you are now the proud owner of the problem. The child will transfer the problem onto the teacher. "She is upset that I got into a fight" will be the child's thinking, rather than "I got into a fight."

6. Discipline needs to fit the offense and quickly follow the offense in terms of time.

7. Children need to know that they are still liked and cared for, despite the altercation.

To put this into practice, you as the teacher should have a list of rules in mind. I will add here: keep them simple, concise and direct. Don't get too bogged down in the nos. Your students will not like coming to Sunday school if they feel judged and stifled with every move they make. It is also good to discuss the rules to allow the children to feel they've had a choice and voice in making them. You may even want to start your first day of class asking the children what they think the rules for Sunday school should be, and go from there.

Communication of your plan is essential. Not only do your students need to know it, but the parents do, too. Find a way to let them know what you expect of the children and the parents' responsibilities. A parents' meeting and/or flier are possible ways.

How to Enforce Your Plan

This is a very crucial part. Without it, your students will know the rules mean nothing. Of course, your example is a means of enforcement in the long range, but you also need a plan of action in the immediate sense. Many public school teachers have many techniques to keep order in the classroom (such as turning off the lights when things start to get out of control, etc.). They also use a system of what was called (in our parents' and grandparents' day) demerits. These may take the form of a chart with all the students' names on it. Next to each name are two pockets. One has three different colored cards in it, and the other is for infractions of the rules. When that happens, one card is pulled from one pocket and set into the other. When all cards are pulled in one day, a note is sent home to the parents. Each day the children begin over again.

The use of a "time out" chair or place is another. Just remember that to a child, one minute can seem like an eternity. So don't go overboard with it.

Rewards are another method, but I would not use them indiscriminately. If you do, they become meaningless and the children will not be developing their own sense of self-discipline. In this instance the rewards are conditioning them to act a certain way and it is not allowing them to reason why they must do so, thereby developing their character. This is not to say that an occasional class celebration or special sticker/bookmark is out of the question. Moderation is the key.

In Conclusion

The route that teachers need to employ for their students to develop self-discipline is to:

Love them

Know them

Expect the best from them

Explain expectations to them

Guide them

Encourage and praise them.

Next month: Parental Involvement and Participation

God And Academia

By Sara Horsfall

In high school, I wanted to be a psychiatrist (after wanting to be a hair dresser, a fashion designer, and an interior decorator). Then I discovered that psychiatry required 7 years of medical training, plus training in psychiatry. I gave up the idea. But I didn't give up on a profession helping people. I switched to psychology. In college, my first psychology class was taught by a behaviorist (the ones who experiment on white mice). His reply to my questions ("You can take my advanced course when you're a senior") and his general approach convinced me that this person, and possibly this subject was not for me. Nevertheless, as a senior I took a graduate course in physiological psychology, and prepared to enter graduate school as a psychologist. Before I could attend, however, I joined the Unification Church as a full-time member. It was 18 years before I returned to academia. In the interim my interest had shifted to Sociology.

Psychologists versus Sociologists

Like Psychology, Sociology is concerned with the study of people. However, there is an obvious difference. Psychology takes the individual as the unit. It looks inward, seeking to answer the question, "What it is that makes the individual tick?" Psychologists are not as likely to be interested in groups of people except to understand the effect that other individuals have on a particular person. Sociology, on the other hand, looks at the social environment- from the small family to the local community, to the nation and the world. Some sociologists are comfortable with the extreme view of social determinism: they believe that the social environment makes you who you are. Many sociologists are not as concerned with what goes on inside the individual except as it relates to the entire social picture. In-between the psychologists and the sociologists are the social psychologists, who are interested in both what makes people tick, and the dynamics of the groups that all individuals are a part of. They accept the idea that the social environment influences the individual but many would not subscribe to an extreme form of social determinism. There are psychological social psychologists (those who identify themselves as psychologists), and sociological social psychologists (those who identify themselves as sociologists).

Sociologists commonly divide the areas of study within the field into macro and micro. Political sociologists and organizational theorists are examples of a macro focus-analyzing large groups of people and organizations, political influences, voting behavior, workings of organizations including governments, businesses, etc. Micro sociologists examine small groups, such as the family, and perhaps the community. They study such things as how people interact with each other, the meaning systems that are created, the development of power, prestige and status and how that affects interaction. I am a micro sociologist-and a social psychologist.

Psychology and Sociology as Cain and Abel

Aside from these simple distinctions, there are other important differences between psychology and sociology, differences that have led me to conclude that sociology, as a research field, is in the Abel position, in comparison to psychology. There is the immediate observation that psychologists are more likely to label Unification Church members as psychotic, and claim they are brainwashed. Sociologists, on the other hand, are not usually as quick to judge, and are more interested in the whole situation as a phenomena. Sociologists are more likely to appreciate the religious meaning, even if the organizational structure and forms of worship are not traditional. Psychologists, on the other hand, are quick to label someone like David Koresh a megalomaniac. (I say this from personal experience. I was taking a psychology course when the Waco tragedy occurred. I was aghast at the arm-chair analysis of the situation from a professor who otherwise seemed quite informed, and even spiritual!) John Biermans has given a good description of the psychological approach in his Odyssey of New Religions. And there are sociologists who have written about the Unification Church in a non-derogatory way.

But the distinctions go deeper. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that these surface differences arise because of the deep underlying differences. I contend that the two disciplines have different roots- they arise from different schools of European thought. To understand the significance of the difference, one must examine the philosophical atmosphere in Europe during the time of the Enlightenment. It was a time when the learned philosophers of France, Britain and Italy sought to be free of the authority of the church and tradition. (For a wonderful comparison of the atmosphere then and now, read Science is God by David Horrobin.) Jean-Jacques Rousseau spoke of the social contract-contending that every individual has a right to be governed only after he or she has given consent: government is a social contact, not an imposed rule upon unwilling subjects. The Philosphes advocated the "transcendental pretense"-the idea that all people everywhere are the same. This was meant to counteract the traditional view that some people, mainly the upper class educated and wealthy, are better than others, mainly the uneducated and poor serfs and servant class. Using St. Thomas Aquinas' argument that God's nature could be seen in nature, there was a move among the intellectuals to regard reason as the ultimate authority, rather than church officials. Further, there was a belief, shared by many of the same intellectuals, that nature could provide the same answers as church authorities. The Renaissance and the Enlightenment was a time of turning away from traditional society, traditional authority, traditional mannerisms; a time of embracing the rational, the individual, the scientific.

An important step along the way was Rene Descartes' ("I think, therefore I am") mind-body dualism. His description of the body as a mindless machine was quickly adopted by medical researchers, who were eager to unharnass the body from the mind, or soul-hence sever the practice of medicine from the authority of the Church. This separation of mind and body has dominated medical practice and thought ever since. In the area of mental health (I prefer the term SPSI-Social- Psychological-Spiritual Imbalance), this separation was furthered by medical practitioners who argued that the brain was where the problem of insanity lay-not the spirit. This again severed the practice of medicine-in this case, treatment of the insane-from the authority of the Church.

Freud and the Development of Psychology

Another important European thinker was Benedictus de Spinoza, who objected to Descartes' dualism. He thought that individual psychological events were caused by prior psychological events (an idea known today as psychophysiological parallelism). He saw self- preservation as the most basic law of nature, which expressed itself in appetite, desire, and basic emotions of joy and grief. In other words, for Spinoza, the mind is essentially reduced to bodily instincts. Spinoza's idea became popular throughout Europe, and two centuries later Sigmund Freud adopted it without realizing where it came from. Freud identified two bodily instincts, or two basic drives: sex and aggression. These two instincts, albeit modified by ego and superego, are the source of all psychic energy. Freud called these raw emotions primary processes, and contrasted them with the intellectual, or secondary processes. That is, emotions arise from the physical instincts, and are, thus, more animalistic, or more primary. Intellectual, rational activities are the product of the ego and superego, and arise as the individual develops a conscience.

Coincidentally, Freud's primary processes are almost exclusively those characteristics that traditionally are associated with women and identified as feminine (nurturing, emotive, spontaneous), whereas the secondary processes are those traditionally associated with men and masculinity (logical, orderly, planned, comprehensive).

Freud is one of the persons whose ideas I disagree with the most. To my way of thinking, he took all of spirit world outside the individual-the ideas and feelings that spontaneously come to an individual-and put it into the basement of the personal unconscious. Most people in the western world today, take the things they think and feel as their personal property, stemming from some deep, unconscious experience or memory. In short, Freud separated us from each other in our minds. He put us each in our own private cocoon, instead of letting us be free to participate in, and identify with, the larger social spirit, of which we are a part. Fortunately, I am not alone in my criticism of Freud, although I have not heard this particular critique elsewhere.

These then, are the roots of psychology. Although Freud became more interested in spiritual matters late in his life, he developed his theory along scientific, materialistic lines, incorporating the biases of his day. Of the latter, the most important are his derogatory view of women (as less cultured than men), and his idea that the more rational a person is, the more human he or she is. It is a view in which God and religion have very little place, and belief in such things tends to be seen as a weakness of character. (For a fascinating account of Freud's relationship to his Jewish heritage, I recommend David Bakan's book Sigmund Freud and the Jewish Mystical Tradition.) Freud is one of the persons whose ideas I disagree with the most. To my way of thinking, he took all of spirit world outside the individual-the ideas and feelings that spontaneously come to an individual-and put it into the basement of the personal unconscious. Most people in the western world today, take the things they think and feel as their personal property, stemming from some deep, unconscious experience or memory. In short, Freud separated us from each other in our minds. He put us each in our own private cocoon, instead of letting us be free to participate in, and identify with, the larger social spirit, of which we are a part. Fortunately, I am not alone in my criticism of Freud, although I have not heard this particular critique elsewhere.

There are, to the best of my knowledge, four major divisions of psychology today: psychoanalytic psychology (Freud), behaviorism (I.P. Pavlov and J.B. Watson), humanistic psychology (Herbert Maslow) and analytical psychology (Carl Jung). Certainly not all psychologists adhere to Freud's ideas. There is much that is Principled in Maslow's work, and in Jung. There are aspects of behaviorism and psychoanalytic psychology that can be used in a positive way. But the influence of Freud's thought, not only on psychology, but on all of our western thought, cannot be understated. For example, it is hard to find a modern conception of the Self that does not include some form of the ego, the id, the super ego, the unconscious, or other of Freud's concepts.

Hegel and the Development of Sociology

All of the early Sociologists-Auguste Comte, Herbert Spencer, Georg Simmel, Emile Durkheim, Max Weber, Karl Marx (yes, we have to include him-at least for now)-were concerned with the direction that social development was taking. They were concerned that the rational, individualistic, materialistic tradition would create a society in which people no longer valued family and tradition, a society in which people would seek individual material wealth over loyalty to a community or social group, a society in which life was so fast paced we would become confused and disoriented, and other things. In other words, they were, at least in part, opposed to the developments of the Enlightenment.

All of them had a concept of the social that was very different from Enlightenment thinkers. In Durkheim, the social is very similar to the Jewish tradition of tribal identity and loyalty. (He came from a long line of Jewish Rabbis.) Durkheim and the others saw the individual as being highly influenced by the social group of which he or she was a member. They did not advocate social contract, as did Rousseau. Rather they sought to explain how it is that people came to develop societies, how they learned to live with one another, what the future would hold.

The concept of the social as a living entity that develops, lives, functions as a unit was borrowed from the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel. Hegel objected to the Cartesian dualism of mind and body, and to the Kantian dualism of the noumen (the world as it is) and the phenomenon (the world as we experience it). Once divided, they can never be reunited, he said. (This has indeed proven to be the case for the objective and subjective approaches to understanding, as exemplified in the conflict between religion and science.) Hegel thought that the Enlightenment, for all its brilliance, left out spirituality, which he took to be the inner subject of human activity. Some have interpreted this to mean that ideas are the only reality for Hegel and the Idealists, but that is a simplistic reading of his philosophy. The whole of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit describes the development of a social collective. It is not just the psychology of single group that Hegel describes, but the interaction of the psychologies of several distinct groups, and their growth into a point of unity. It is the unity of humanity into a single human spirit. It is our knowledge of ourselves, thought thinking itself, spirit recognizing itself as spirit, "the confidence that humanity can be a harmonious whole" (Robert Solomon, In the Spirit of Hegel).

Hegel's concept of the individual embedded within society-from the intimate family relationships (he was one of the few European philosophers who even talked about family), to the larger community and state-stands in stark contrast to the ideas of the Enlightenment Philosphes who firmly rejected the church and tradition in favor of science and the transcendental pretense. Hegel had a vision of a dynamic society, growing and developing. Individuals played an important role, but their activity was not contractual, nor was the dynamic of society something that was visible. This complex vision of the inner workings of society is not linear. It cannot be grasped in Enlightenment terminology. It is a holistic approach, encompassing a living, moving entity in an un-machine-like manner. (Hegel's thought is very comfortable for those who have studied Divine Principle, because of the striking similarity between his dialectic and the four position foundation.)

The first and most important collective for Hegel is the family. Love is a special form of reciprocity which supersedes the social contract of individualism. Precisely because it is NOT contractual, it frees those whom it encompasses. The only idea of a marriage contract Hegel allows is a contract to go beyond contract. For Hegel, the family is the foundation of social life.

So, where did Hegel get his ideas, if not from the Enlightenment thinkers? According to some sources, many of his concepts were borrowed from the German mystics-Meister Eckhart, Jacob Boehme, Jan van Ruysbroeck, and others. The concept of growth, the concept of a social whole, the concept of consciousness developing to encompass more and more. So it appears that the thought of this giant European philosopher, whom I have argued elsewhere is really the granddaddy of sociology, reflected the richness of the religious tradition in contrast with that of the Enlightenment scientists, who rejected religion, often in favor of the ancient Greek culture. (Before you start praising Hegel, however, you should know that there are those- including myself-who concluded that he was an atheist! Society itself was God for Hegel, a view shared by most of the early sociologists.)

In light of this very different orientation of the two different disciplines, is there any wonder that they would view religion, and spirituality in quite different ways? Granted not all psychologists are strict Freudians, nor are all sociologists Hegelians (in fact, most of them are not sure how Hegel's philosophy differs from Marx). But the legacy of their thought is still felt. As for myself, I feel certain that I was guided to sociology. There are many theories and ideas that I disagree with in the field today, but it is much easier to present my study of spirituality to sociologists than it would be to present it to psychologists.

Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem

Review by Dr. Thomas Walsh-Louisville, KY

Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem, by David Blankenhorn, Basic Books, NY, 1995. pp. vii + 328, $23.00, HC.

Fatherless America will be praised by some and despised by others. Many will draw their conclusions from the book's title or the blurb on the dust jacket alone. For arguably, issues of marriage and family, including the discussion of the proper way in which sexuality should be normatively ordered and children properly raised, are the most divisive moral concerns facing civil and political society in the United States today. There is a great polarization, akin to that which characterized the dispute between those who espoused the moral superiority of various socialist and/or communist experiments and those who favored the market economy. The cold war era, whose end some saw as marking the "end of history," was characterized by a need to make an important moral judgment, i.e., taking sides in an ideological, political and military conflict centering around the notion of justice as applied to the production and distribution of wealth. Some, of course, particularly in the waning years of the cold war, sought to defend the "moral equivalency" thesis in this dispute. But such a compromise paid little respect to the colossal moral significance of the respective positions.

At the core of the cold war was a debate about political economy. Should the state control the economy, or should the economy be largely in the hands of private citizens? Privatization won out over nationalization. At a deeper level, however, the cold war had to do with the values of freedom and equality. Most communists and socialists saw equality as more precious than freedom-or one could say that equality was seen as the prerequisite for freedom. The capitalists or free market advocates, on the other hand, saw freedom as prior to equality. The point here is simply that what divided the world during the cold war was a dispute over values, priorities and ideas. In particular, the free society was declared morally and politically preferable to coercive egalitarianism.

Freedom, however, if viewed as an end in itself, lacks substance or content. In general, freedom is a formal condition of human action, and ideally provides a context or arena for the pursuit of higher ends. If and when freedom is a priority in a society without discipline, virtue or moral vision, then it becomes the basis for a kind of Hobbesian state of nature. Thus, the challenge for the liberal democracies in the post-cold-war era is to move beyond the celebration of freedom and toward the normative regulation of a good society. No good society is founded on the ideal of freedom alone.

Today the central dispute in the highly developed free societies does not concern itself with the political economy, for neither democracy nor market economies have serious challengers. The new cold war is being waged over the definition of civil society. Hence, today we speak not of the cold war, but of "culture wars."

Given that the ongoing reproduction of the species and the socialization of the young are at the core of any discussion of civil society and culture, this more recent "war" leads to the question of sexuality, marriage and family. Blankenhorn's book is important precisely because he is fully aware of the significance of this struggle.

Blankenhorn's basic thesis is clear: "Fatherlessness is the most harmful demographic trend of this generation.... Men in general, and fathers in particular, are increasingly viewed as superfluous to family life: either expendable or part of the problem" (1-2). In the United States there has been a systematic erosion of the ideal, as well as the practice of fatherhood. Fathers are a dying, or at least endangered, species. Between 1960 and 1994 the percentage of children living apart from fathers more than doubled, going from 18 to 40%. Blankenhorn identifies two primary "preconditions of effective fatherhood": 1) co-residency with children, and 2) parental alliance with the mother. Fatherhood is integrally related to husbandhood. That is, an alliance with the mother is as central to fatherhood as a paternal care for the children. However, in contemporary society, divorce having become normative in popular culture, the ideal of fatherhood is itself being divorced from marriage and husbandhood.

Blankenhorn describes fatherhood as a society's most important role for men. Fatherhood, more than any other social role, domesticates and tames male selfishness and male aggressiveness. Fathers, he maintains, are "more likely to obey the law, to be good citizens, and to think about the needs of others." Moreover, fatherhood "privileges children" (25). The results of fatherlessness, on the other hand, are "rising male violence and declining child well-being" (26). Blankenhorn points out, for example, that a child is much less likely to be abused by his or her biological, live-in father, than by a boyfriend, step-parent, or ex-husband. The same is true of wife abuse: women are much more likely to be abused by boyfriends, live-in lovers and ex-husbands than by their spouse. Blankenhorn concludes, "If the cultural antidote for male violence is monogamous marriage and responsible fatherhood, the breeding grounds for it are casual sex, family fragmentation and nonmarital childbearing. As we deinstitutionalize marriage and fracture fatherhood in our society, we must not be surprised by the rapid spread of male violence, especially violence against women" (39). Fatherlessness breeds boys with guns, girls with babies, and single mothers in poverty.

Many, of course, do not share Blankenhorn's analysis, and view positively the statistics which reveal the decline of fathers, citing the end of patriarchy and the rise of androgynous parenting. Some celebrate single parenthood, arguing for either the irrelevance of fatherhood as conventionally understood, or the pernicious nature of traditional, oppressive fatherhood. Blankenhorn shows the ways in which pop culture, the establishment media, sociologists and members of academia have encouraged the demise of fatherhood. Blankenhorn points in particular to the work of Frank L. Mott at Ohio State University, whose research seeks to show that the decline of fatherhood has little social significance, and is in fact often more helpful than harmful. Blankenhorn describes such scholarship as attempting to "normalize fatherlessness-to remove from it any stigma of deviancy or even undesirability-by insisting that the baseline cause for social alarm is no longer the absence of a good father, but the hypothetical presence of a bad father" (79). Fathers are either unnecessary or undesirable. Moreover, fatherlessness is seen as the antidote to the "mascupathology" that some see as the chief cause of social ills.

Blankenhorn, at one point, compares those who affirm fatherlessness and a radical restructuring of the monogamous two-parent family to the Marxist social vision. In this new radicalism, class conflict is replaced by gender conflict as the central category for social analysis and social criticism. The capitalist is replaced by the father. One advocates the classless society, and the other a genderless society. Marxists are suspicious of private property, while today's post-Marxist cultural revolutionaries as suspicious of paternal authority (92). For Blankenhorn, just as Marxism's cure for capitalism was worse than the disease, today's reformers offer a potion that inflicts grave harm. Blankenhorn states, "A fatherless society must accept the consequences of undomesticated masculinity: mistrust, violence, nihilism.... Ultimately, rapism and the warrior mentality represent the kingdom of the fatherless, not the fathers. Male predation is not the synonym, but rather the necessary antonym, of encultured paternity" (95).

Much of the book is devoted to the presentation of a typology of various cultural "models" or images of fatherhood. There is the "Old Father," the scapegoat father, associated with abuse, oppression and totalitarianism, the one from whom the fatherless society is supposedly fleeing. Then there is the "New Father," who seeks to be a genderless or androgynous self; instead of any gender-specific father role, he engages in a generic kind of co-parenting with the mother of the children. The New Father ideal goes hand in hand, according to Blankenhorn, with theories upholding the viability, if not preferability, of single-parent families. Fathers as gender-types are unnecessary.

A third type is the "Deadbeat Dad," the ex-husband who refuses to pay child support. Blankenhorn shows how the rush to pursue deadbeat dads is grounded in the premise that the father role is not so relevant, and what really counts is financial support: the absence of a father is not a problem, only the absence of income. The pursuit of deadbeat dads, however, solves neither the problem of poverty nor the more serious problem of the absence of a father. Contemporary culture prefers the male income to the male image. Given that society offers no compelling narrative or vision for fathers, there is a rampant proliferation of deadbeat dads. Since society views dads as irrelevant, apart from financial support, they become ever more prone to see themselves as non-fathers and, naturally, non-providers.

The "Visiting Father," unlike the Deadbeat Dad, pays child support and cooperates with the mother of the children. But visitation, according to Blankenhorn, is wholly alien to the notion of fathering, for fathers do not visit their children-they live with their children. Children know this instinctively. Fathers know it, too. Mothers know it. Pretending to be a father while neither living with one's children nor with the mother of the children undercuts the basic meaning of fatherhood, i.e., a co-resident, fully allied with the mother, who invests himself to protect and provide for his family. The Visiting Father ideal is an offspring of hemorrhaging divorce rates. Unable to slow the rates of divorce-and having redefined divorce as therapeutic- society seeks to counsel divorcing couples to practice a better kind of divorce, a more cooperative type of divorce. The Visiting Father seeks to comply with this value; in the bargain, divorce is itself affirmed as a useful form of renewal and growth-perfectly fine, so long as one acts maturely and visits one's children regularly and provides child support.

The next type is the "Sperm Father." Sperm Fathers have no intention of being fathers. Their task is strictly biological, and in no way do they understand their role vis-a-vis their children as social or paternal; that is, they have no intention of raising their children. Most Sperm Fathers have no intention of ever being "cultural" fathers. In the discussion of Sperm Fathers, Blankenhorn considers political writers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, who saw fatherhood as the foundation of civil society, i.e., that which distinguished civil society from a state of nature. The ordering of sexuality and progeny was the first step away from the unbridled violence of the state of nature.

Other types discussed include the "Stepfather" and the "Nearby Guy," both of which positions seek to distance fatherhood from biological connections. Neither succeed. Blankenhorn's ideal of the good father is characterized by gender complementarity (as opposed to genderless or androgynous parenting) and a commitment to protect, provide, nurture and sponsor his children.

Blankenhorn's book is a call to American society to move from a divorce culture to a marriage culture: "While we believe in marrying, we are losing our belief in the institution of marriage. As a result, we are simultaneously institutionalizing divorce and deinstitutionalizing marriage. For divorce, our goals are to regularize it, and improve its procedures. For marriage, our goals are the opposite. Deregulate and privatize it. Make it more flexible. Reduce its privileged legal status and cultural influence. Describe it in high school textbooks not as an ideal but as one of many options. In a divorce culture, marriage is increasingly viewed as a problem, divorce as a viable solution" (224).

Blankenhorn concludes the book with 12 proposals which are to serve to reinvigorate a marriage culture. These proposals range from a presidential "state of fatherhood" report, the establishing of Father's Clubs, privileging two-parent families in public housing, local populist organizations for civic and familial renewal, interfaith councils on marriage and family, and others which appeal to scholars, professional athletes and state legislatures to create a vision of fatherhood and families.

What is perhaps most important about Blankenhorn's book is his identification of the way in which the ostensibly private values of sexuality, marriage and family are thoroughly public in their implications. The social significance of the family has been taken for granted. The effects of its decline, including rampant crime, violence, psychological disorders, mistrust and rage will be with us for a long time. While issues such as poverty and the environment have strong support in the elite media and cultural centers, many are reluctant to address the decline of the family. In part, this is due to a misplaced compassion for, or perhaps even fear of, single parents, children without fathers, homosexuals and feminists who would take offense at any normative privileging of the traditional family. For this reason Blankenhorn's work, I suspect, will be vilified by many. This is natural, given the polarization on the issues of sexuality, male-female relations and the value of marriage. However, if Blankenhorn is correct, and I believe he is, the crisis of fatherlessness in America can be ignored only at great cost. For those who understand the significance of the contemporary culture wars, Fatherless America should be read.

Thomas G. Walsh is the executive director of the International Religious Foundation.

Digging for the Religious Foundation at Yale

by Revs. David and Kathleen Burton-New Haven, CT

March 19, 1995, we formally opened our new Campus Ministry office and video center. I had to sit down in the large wing-backed chair and take a moment to reflect. I looked around, gazed out the large triple windows looking onto Yale's Sterling Library right across the street, and smiled in gratitude to God. Finally a foothold, a physical foundation of substance where God could begin a new phase in His providence at this Ivy League university.

This is our fifth academic year here and, as we look back, God's handiwork is truly apparent. Many members have memories of witnessing here in the seventies and eighties, and at least five of our members are alumni. What has genuinely endeared this campus to me after these five years? At first, I thought it to be a perfect blending for our couple. David is from England and certainly the external atmosphere is scrupulously reminiscent of the ivy walls of Oxford and Cambridge. I'm from California where the universities reap the blessings of the energy and sunny optimism of West Coast academics. However, on further reflection, I realized that what I have come to love at Yale is not primarily in the present surroundings or in the significance of our ministry couple (UTS Div. '90), but in the past religious history of Yale.

This university was founded by ministers with the original purpose of forming men of heavenly character and virtue spiritually to guide the communities of our budding nation properly. Jonathan Edwards studied, taught and preached here. Of the first 40 graduating classes, over half became ministers. Nearly half of the colleges which comprise Yale are named after ministers. These men of God yearn from the spiritual world to see Yale once again serve God's providence. They know (as we do) that Yale has become the world-renowned institution it is because of their foundation. The external blessing is the result of the internal efforts to serve God first. So goes the university motto: "For God, for country, for Yale." Yale's crest reads "Lux et Veritas," which in Latin means "Light and Truth." (Harvard's crest reads "Veritas", so the standard Yale joke is that Yale students are former Harvard students who have seen the light!) All kidding aside, however, the light is growing dimmer at Yale, and these righteous men who gave their lives to lay the spiritual foundation for this university and this nation, constantly push us in our public mission work to do more, witness more, and serve the campus ministers more! Sometimes it can seem overwhelming!

In November 1993, Kwon Jin Nim gave his first public speech here and laid the foundation for True Mother to come in March 1994. This is the only university to have experienced substantial Mother-Son cooperation in proclaiming "True Parents and the Completed Testament Age." The Yale Daily News gave Kwon Jin Nim a photo and a fairly objective article, and with total unity with church members, over 500 guests were invited for Mother's speech in Levinson Auditorium at Yale Law School-the alma mater of three of the last five presidents (Ford, Bush and Clinton) and the current First Lady. It was filled with guests and students.

At the same time as Mother's speech, a spiritual battle was being waged on campus with one of our graduate students at the forefront. The Gay and Lesbian agenda has been pushed to the maximum here at Yale. Prof. John Boswell, who helped establish a Gay Studies Program here, died of AIDS recently. As a self-proclaimed Gay historian at Yale, known for his book Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, he left a pernicious legacy here.

You can imagine how many of those ministers are turning in their graves. For the past few years, there has been a week of homosexual programs and propaganda called BGLAD Week organized on campus. In 1994, it fell right at the time of True Mother's speech. This included pornographic chalk drawings on the sidewalks to "heighten awareness." One of the Unificationist graduate students in history at Yale, Nile Gardiner, and a Christian friend, took mops and buckets and proceeded to clean it all off. This of course started allegations concerning free speech, and many articles in the Yale newspapers covered this. They became quiet famous in the Yale conservative circles as "The Moppers." Literally cleaning up Yale!

Since our arrival at Yale, David and I have been associate members of YRM (Yale Religious Ministries). Through this affiliation we have been able to interact with all the mainline ministries at Yale. This past autumn, the Catholic campus minister, Sister Joann Veillette, accepted an invitation from the Japanese Students Club at University of Bridgeport to come and speak to them about her 11 years as a nun in Japan. This year, for the first time, YRM sponsored Religious Awareness Days. At the Interfaith Service they asked us to represent Unificationism, so we set up an offering table with True Parents' picture and Jesus' picture and explained the significance of the tradition.

We are grateful to be so close to God's providence at University of Bridgeport. I suppose you could say we are Cain and UB is Abel. It seems True Parents would like a strong working relationship to develop among Barrytown, UB, and Yale. To get this triangle going, in August 1994 we hosted an Introductory Unification Seminar for UB faculty, administration and staff here at Yale. Dr. Baughman taught, as well as faculty from UTS. There were 48 in attendance. In the same month, 67 Asian university presidents from Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines visited Yale and UB during their 10-day tour (see photos). I had the pleasure of working on the tour and meeting the extraordinary couple, Rev. Byung Wooh Kim and his wife Mrs. Chung Hae Kim. Each of the participants represented thousands of students, potential CARP chapters, faculty exchanges, etc.

This academic year marked some firsts for us. The first second generation student, Miss Jin Hee Kim, daughter of the regional director for Latin America, Rev. Kim, entered as a freshman. We also have two graduate students in history, one graduating this year.

Also for the first time, we were able to invite the STF (special task force) from Boston to come and witness on a regular basis for our weekly Divine Principle study and Bible study. The Bible study curriculum is centered around Joymakers by Rev. Joong Hyun Pak. We also did a two-part program on sexuality in November. On two consecutive days we advertised the showing of "Lethal Risk" followed by Richard Panzer's "After the Sexual Revolution." We had free sushi afterwards. Forty two students came, and we had an article in the Yale Daily News. Next year we hope to repeat the program, with better advertising and a follow-up plan for a monthly abstinence support group.

The final "first" is my appointment as adjunct faculty at Yale in the French department. This was really God's gift to me, because I was praying to get on campus every day, but I was still doing quite a few hours waitressing at the church restaurant to make ends meet. I applied for a position on the advice of a home church friend, thinking that perhaps in the autumn I might have a chance. I could not believe that a spot opened up unexpectedly in January. It has been challenging to teach every day, but it has taken me back to my French roots again, since I joined the church in Paris. I pray I can continue in this position.

It was in November that we began to look for an office/video center. There seemed to be no place close enough to campus other than one empty shop with a $1000 monthly price tag. I kept praying, until the realtor told me of another available space. It was perfect! The red tape (and the skeptical Yale financial office-Yale is our landlord) took nearly three months and lots of prayer before we finally could sign our lease. We received permission from our regional director, Rev. Jae Suk Kim, to use our tithing money toward the rent. University of Bridgeport and a few private donations helped us get by. We redesigned the interior, and the atmosphere is "Yale cum library cum living room"-just as we wanted it! We decided to have a ribbon-cutting ceremony and dinner with our regional director, UCMA directors, UB campus ministers, and some of our local church members who helped so much-and of course our students and visiting scholars-on March 19, celebrating our opening and the one-year anniversary since True Mother's speech (see photo). We will invite the Yale campus ministers to a sushi luncheon reception on May 4 at 11am, just before the YRM end-of-year picnic at noon.

Since our opening, we have had a number of visitors. Two Chinese scholars, accompanied by Dr. Ang, visited the campus and our office. One graduate student, two undergraduates and a visiting Fulbright scholar from China have come to hear about Divine Principle and our ministry. Dr. Yuing Chang, the Fulbright scholar, was met during our autumn witnessing efforts. She has been studying with us ever since and is now involved with consulting work with the new Chinese curriculum project.

I have tried to tie in my community service work in girl scouting with my ministry work at Yale. For the second year, my troop has sponsored an Interfaith Service and Mother-Daughter Tea at Dwight Hall Chapel at Yale. We worked with the director of community relations at Yale, Mrs. Daisy Rodriguez. A very good person to know! The girls chose "Making God Smile" as their theme and gave readings from the World Scriptures. I gave a short sermon to the 72 mothers and daughters attending. Again we received excellent press coverage.

David is currently adjunct faculty at Southern Connecticut State University in the chemistry department. He hopes for a professorship at UB for which he has recently applied. He is also teaching Tongil Moo Do at UB and has performed in their International Festival. It was very impressive, with more than 25 nationalities represented. I told their dean of students that Yale would have a hard time organizing something like that because only 7.3% of the student body is from foreign countries. At UB it's 25%! They can really be proud of that.

So you can see-we spread across three campuses! This summer I hope to learn video production skills at a workshop at a cable network not far from us. I would like to develop a multimedia lecture on spiritual principles, i.e., the relationship between spirit world and physical world, using excerpts from popular movies, slides and passages from Wanderer in the Spirit Lands. This could have good results in student turnout, since it teaches and entertains as well. Anyone interested in doing this together with me?

The World CARP Academy sounds very exciting! Jin Hun Nim is working so hard to challenge us to rise to a new level. May we get there soon and build a new college atmosphere for American students. Amen!