The Jurassic Zoo – part one, section one

(YellowTimes.org) – Normally, dangerous reptiles in zoos are kept inside secure areas. Visitors, non-threatening to the animals, are free to roam the grounds. In the year 2002, these roles have been reversed. The dangerous cold-blooded animals are on the loose and the hapless visitors are kept inside cages.

Who are these reptiles permitted to roam freely? Did the Loch Ness monster escape from Scotland? Did scientists clone a carnosaur from scraps of DNA, the beast escaping from the lab and free to threaten the countryside? Did space aliens drop a few stegosaurs from their UFO to menace the United States? No! From all outward appearances one cannot tell the difference between the dangerous reptiles gallivanting around America and the hapless victims they hold at bay. I will explain the metaphor after sharing some examples of the carnage leaving its bloody trail in the land of the free and the brave.

Homeland Security has now established an electronic center potentially able to monitor just about everyone in the United States. The FBI seems to have the capability of processing about 1 million electronic messages in a matter of seconds. In recent days, the United States Supreme Court ruled that undocumented immigrants lose the right to be reinstated, the right to back wages, and the right to be paid overtime if they participate in an effort to unionize. This is a group of workers who make up almost 4 percent of the entire U.S. work force and more than half of all farm workers. Is this not a version of Palestinians living in Israel?

The United States House of Representatives, now renamed the House of Corporate Stooges, passed a bill purportedly protecting workers' pension rights. However, employees are not entitled to sit on their Pension Fund Boards. They do not have the right of redress when given bad investment advice. High-level executives do not have to report any sales of their stock. POTUS appointed R.K. Pachauri to the Chair, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This dinosaur/gentleman voted against a judicial inquiry to investigate the disaster of the Dabhol Power Plant in India, an Enron enterprise. Several other anti-environmental activities appear on his Vita.

Dinosaurs are roaming the countryside and the luckless decent, hard-working people are held in captivity. How can we explain such a state of affairs? As Ross Perot would say, pointing to a pie chart, "It's easy." Well, it is easy to explain once one knows the rule of the game. The metaphor is clarified when one understands the behavioral priorities imprinted in the basal ganglia of the human brain.

Some basic facts about the evolutionary development of the triune brain must be understood in order to apprehend the senseless descent of our culture into the abyss of darkness. Unless there is a radical change in understanding human behavior, bin Laden may well have the last laugh. The destruction of the American dream is well under way. It is mostly the result of a few ounces of brain matter, the basal ganglia, situated above the hindbrain. What the dealers and the wheelers do not realize is that their repressive deeds have little to do with their idealistic expression of capitalism or the free market. Their toxic deeds are but expressions of a part of the forebrain extending back in time for about 240,000,000 years.

Paul D. MacLean, M.D., introduced to you in the last article, removed cells from the human basal ganglia. He stained them in the proper method for slide preparation, then repeated the process with reptilian brain cells. When placed under the microscope there is little observable difference between these slides. This simply means that our reptilian ancestry is alive and well in our brains. While dinosaurs no longer roam the earth, they bequeathed some of their performance patterns to every single baby born on the Blue Planet! MacLean applies the term "reptilian brain" or "R-complex" to the basal ganglia.

After MacLean established the similarity between the human and reptilian basal ganglia, he turned his attention to reptilian behavior. His research yielded some rather astonishing results. In addition to the physiological characteristics imprinted in the R-complex, it also generates fundamental behavioral or psychological functions. On page 100 of his book, MacLean lists "25 Special Forms of Basic Behavior" and on page 143 he lists an additional six "General Forms of 'Interoperative' Behavior." For our purposes, we can generalize and reduce these 31 forms of behavior into four major categories. They are A.) Territory, B.) Hierarchy, C.) Ritual and D.) Deceit

These functions of the reptilian brain are only concerned with survival of the self. The reptilian brain has been most effective in achieving that goal. While many species have been exterminated, neural reptilian circuitry survived. I am convinced that long after homo sapiens disappear from the earth, the basal ganglia will survive in whatever life-forms succeed us. Having survived for about 240,000,000 years, there is no reason to believe it will not survive into the long distant future.

Every aspect of the basal ganglia concentrates on the needs of individual survival - it has no concerns for other members of the same or any other species. The territorial imprint in the reptilian brain, unchecked by any other dynamics, is responsible for the existence of free-roaming dinosaurs destroying the possibility of a society of free citizens exercising their privileges with a profound sense of social responsibility. While many of our leading alphas talk a good game and make idealistically sounding speeches, their actions evidence their enslavement to the R-complex.

We need to understand three important points.

1.) No self-correcting mechanisms exist among the divisions of the triune brain. Self-limiting neural ganglia do not exist to put a stop to self-centered drives.

2.) Human territoriality extends beyond the merely physical. Ideas and beliefs are a substantive part of each individual's territory. Whether invasion comes from a burglar or someone holding a radically different viewpoint, the response of the R-complex is the same. It reacts to opposing points of view as instinctively as it does to an invasion of territory.

3.) It appears that reptiles limit their territorial aggressiveness to simply insure sufficient "Lebensraum." In humans, however, territoriality expansiveness for many members of our tribe operates on the premise that too much is never enough.

With reference to points 1 and 2 it can be said that it is almost impossible to have a rational, intelligent conversation about differing political, religious or economic points of view. In most instances, discussion within minutes becomes a defense of one's system of beliefs. When controlling alphas decide that the fiscal bottom line is the be-all and end-all of corporate responsibility, when politicians decide that in the name of capitalism even inhumane decisions are acceptable, then reason and logic cannot prevail. Money and power are simply modern adaptations of the territorial imprint in the R-complex.

We all remember that a car model having a defective fuel tank exploded in several instances causing a number of deaths. The company did a cost effectiveness study. It concluded that it would be cheaper to pay a few death claims than to recall and retrofit all cars on the road. The decision-making executive did not fit the F.B.I. profile of mass murderers. They just acted on the impulse of their reptilian brains.

When Enron cheated Californians of billions of dollars during their manufactured energy crises, neither Kenny Boy et al, including POTUS who refused to come to the rescue of the citizens, could be accused of looking like Al Capone. No, they just acted in accordance with their reptilian brains unchecked by any controlling elements.

Nothing, not even sex, is more important to any living organism than its own space, its territory. Thank you, Dr. Freud, but territory preempts sex as the most fundamental of all needs. Without space we can't make love. Without your own space, you cannot exist.

It is a peculiar twist in the human species that insists on extending its territory beyond survival needs. It is not enough to merely establish and defend one's territory. We evidence our aggressiveness by conquest and subjection of the conquered. I presume that human desire to lord over other members of our species is due to the neocortex. Recall that the newest part of the brain is only about three to five million years old. By some twist of nature, the reptilian brain made the youngest part of the forebrain its servant.

The non-linguistic and non-reasoning ancient brain uses the neocortex to develop both a rationale for the irrational and to voice supposed reasons for the unreasonable. Thus we justify wanton appropriation of another's labor by defending practices in the name of the Free Market. The reptilian brain asserts repressive labor practices in the name of Competitive Edge, wages at levels below the minimum standards of living in the name of Capitalism. And all the while, the dominating dinosaurs vote themselves compensations that would make a common pickpocket blush with shame.

Reptiles espouse lofty religious themes while trampling justice and righteousness in the mire of their self-created reasonless drive for ever-larger profits at all cost. The selfishness engendered by the reptilian brain knows no dishonor. Have not all the reptile/gentlemen a list of reasons for their behavior a mile long? Little do they realize that the list is the eventually self-destructive creature of their own irrational basal ganglia. Does not "the glory that WAS Greece and the splendor that WAS Rome" say anything to these usurpers of the common good?

The R-complex's territorial imperative causes leaders and rulers to trample dinosaur-like through the halls of Congress, the walnut-paneled Board Rooms, and the Oval Office. And the rest of us find ourselves imprisoned in the "cages" designed by them. Limitation of civil liberties, imposition of religious dogmatism, destruction of equal access to health care, economic enslavement through usurious interest on credit cards, and pillage of the environment are but a few examples of the cages imprisoning us.

There are no great democratic ideals to be found in sending our young men and women into combat to protect the monetary interests of the oil companies. The decision committing troops are hatched in the R-complex of the wheelers and the dealers. Nothing noble exists in pharmaceutical companies ripping off everyone with their pricing structure. These decisions are engendered in the R-complex of the wheelers and the dealers.

Dinosaurs are alive and well. The very structure of our society testifies to that fact. The next article will consider the hierarchical, ritualistic, and deceitful imprints in the human basal ganglia.

The Jurassic Zoo – part one, section two

(YellowTimes.org) – The territorial imperative, deeply embedded in the basal ganglia of the human triune brain, provides circuitry driving many modern humans to amass ever more territory in the form of power and money. Controlling alphas of any society, whether in Afghanistan or the United States, dominate others, including their fellow citizens, because of behavioral patterns imprinted in their reptilian brains. The unmanaged dominance of the priorities of the basal ganglia makes for strange bedfellows. There is little doubt in my mind that the motivating drives of the President of the United States at this time are far more closely aligned with the underlying motives of an Afghanistan warlord than with an American family barely making ends meet. Can there even be any question that former President Reagan had far more feelings for President Marcos than he did for American traffic controllers? And I am willing to bet my hard-earned dollar against your donut that President Reagan's empress had far more empathy for Mrs. Marcos than she did for her American maids.

The question now before us is why are the masses of people willing to accept the unfairness, even the injustice, of the controlling alphas? Not so surprisingly the reason for placid compliance is located in the same neural complex as the territorial imperative.

As you follow the thoughts in this column, you will see that this makes perfect sense for the survival of a species. A number of reptilian behavior patterns listed by MacLean can be summarized with the simple term "hierarchy." Let me explain how that behavior insures survival of a species. All imprints in the basal ganglia - for that matter in the entire brain of any species - primarily serve to insure survival. What has hierarchy to do with survival?

In any group, herd, and tribe - whatever - of any species there are periodic times when rather violent behavior is manifested to establish the alpha animal. The rewards for that position are rather significant. Alphas have breeding rights and access to all females. Now that is something worth fighting for. Even the simplistic brain of a dinosaur understands that perk. But there remains one problem needing to be solved. Unless there is a general acceptance of the alpha by all members of the group, the fighting would go on forever. So nature came up with a neat trick. At some moment in time, everyone agrees that enough is enough. Fighting stops. With the mutually agreed upon truce, the alpha can go ahead undisturbed and impregnate the females. Thus the continuity of the species is ensured. Everyone can eat in relative peace and do his or her thing without having to worry about being attacked. Peace is maintained with each member knowing its position in the pecking order. Then the process is repeated again the following year. The hierarchic imprint insures survival of the tribe. Period.

Of course, the need for hierarchy is deeply imbedded in our species. I cannot imagine human societies functioning without a hierarchical structure. Someone in a corporation has to assume ultimate responsibility for the decision making process. As President Truman used to say, "The buck stops here." And not only must there be an alpha in charge of things, the rest of the organization has to accept the decisions that have been made. When firemen are fighting a big blaze, someone has to decide how best to get control of the situation. His or her command must be unquestionably accepted. Those situations are the plus side of hierarchical structures. Authority without hierarchy degenerates into chaos.

Leave it to humans with their big brains to screw up the deal. If a downside is to be found, leave it to our kind to find it. Those who really want to be the dominant alphas easily take advantage of the hierarchical imprint in our brains. They pervert our predisposition to accept leadership and lord it over their subordinates. Let but a charismatic orator appeal to our territorial needs and we hail him our Fuehrer, Prime Minister, or President and pledge allegiance to him or her. Blindly we follow even if it means that we become self-destructive.

Even in America, the land of the free, hierarchic behavior dominates. While under the flimsiest of excuses, civil liberties and human rights are abrogated by Deputy Fuehrer Ashcoft, the crowd chants, Hail to the Chief! An approval rating of 70 percent or even 80 percent has much more to do with the reptilian need for hierarchy than with popular approval of presidential policies.

Maslow in Motivation and Personality makes the point that in times of threat to the authority of the state it becomes easy for people to accept a dictatorship or military rule. Fear can cause a people to elevate their leader to a dictator. The need for hierarchy makes it easy for the leader to assume the function of Il Duce.

I do not believe that Bush or Ashcroft have any idea about the existence of the hierarchical imprint in the basal ganglia. Yet, its pervasive power is so great that no conscious script is needed to gain control over masses of people. Groups of any species desire a leader. It lends a sense of stability to the order of things. Dominating individuals are present in every group. They offer their power. The masses are willing to accept it because without structure they feel insecure. Were the alphas to use their power for the benefit of the people, the system would work fine.

Regretfully, in the history of our species those who wield power fairly and judiciously are few and far between. Leaders are out to protect and further their own turf. The need for structure is so dominant that most of the time, most people allow themselves to be led around by their noses. Individuals who challenge the structure, even for the best of reasons, are at best ostracized and at worst sent to concentration camps. Resentment of persons who blow the whistle for excellent reasons are not only resented by the alphas but often also shunned by their fellows. Intellectually they might agree that either illegal or immoral actions have taken place. However, resentment against the whistleblowers stems from drives buried deep in an ancient part of the brain. It is far easier to accept the wrongdoing than to upset reptilian survival techniques.

The profound depth of hierarchical behavior was demonstrated in an experiment conducted by Dr. Stanley Milgram, Psychology Department, Yale University, published in 1965.

Milgram designed a study revolving around a group of "volunteers" recruited through newspaper ads. The volunteers were the actual subjects of the experiments. However, they did not know that. They thought that the experiment revolved around the "students." The volunteers came from diverse backgrounds and were paid a modest fee for their participation. This was the experiment.

A group of actors had been employed to play the part of students. They were seated, in an adjacent room, on contraptions resembling electric chairs. Attached to the students' wrists were wires connected to a console. A keyboard, attached to the console, was in front of the volunteers. On it were thirty switches in increments of 15 volts. Inscriptions above the switches read: SLIGHT SHOCK; INTENSE SHOCK; DANGER: SEVERE SHOCK. Of course, in the experiment there was no electricity in the wires. No actual shocks could be administered. But the volunteers did not know that.

The professor was in charge of the experiment. He gave each student several pairs of words such as "blue – ox," "wild - duck," "nice - day." After a time interval, the volunteer gave the first word of a pair to the student. If the student gave the wrong answer, the volunteer was instructed to administer a slight shock. As the students continued giving wrong answers, the voltage was increased. The students were instructed to start groaning and to express pain. At a certain point the groans were to become screams. When the shocks reached 350 volts, the students were instructed to become silent. The volunteers were instructed that no answer called for increased voltage. After the administration of three 450-volt shocks, the professor called off the experiment.

Before the project began, Milgram asked thirty-nine psychiatrists to estimate the number of volunteers who would administer the full 450 volts. The consensus was that most would not go past 150 volts. About 4 percent would reach the 300 volts stage and only a pathological group of one in one thousand would administer the full dosage.

In fact, 60 percent of the volunteers administered the full shock. Some did so even after the students demanded to be released from the experiment due to the pain. In other countries where the experiment was conducted, the number of volunteers administering the 450 volts was even greater. In Munich the figure reached 85 percent.

Milgram deduced that the reason for the continued administration of the "corrective punishment" was not due to sadistic urges by the volunteers. Rather, the volunteers became integrated into a social structure and were unable to get out of it. They were caught up in the hierarchy. The professor was the controlling alpha animal. The ancient basal ganglia dominated the behavior of the volunteers in spite of the fact that they lived in a "civilized society."

Blind obedience to hierarchical drives has caused and is causing havoc among humankind. Charlatans know very well how to exploit the reptilian brains of their followers. The dominating alphas are quite unawares that ancient dinosaurs control their behavior. They believe it their genius or their leadership that makes the masses do their bidding. In reality both alphas and followers simply follow the dictates of neural circuitry laid down about 240,000,000 years ago.

The combination of territory and hierarchy can indeed have a most destructive effect in the affairs of the human animal. Add to these two behavioral patterns the powers of ritual and deceit and you have the kind of deadly brew that has enslaved most of humanity for most of its history.

Section three of The Jurassic Zoo will discuss these aspects of our behavior.

The Jurassic Zoo – part one, section three

(YellowTimes.org) – The first two sections discussing the evolutionary development of the human brain dealt with two of the four behavior patterns, the territorial imperative and hierarchy, imprinted in the basal ganglia or the reptilian brain. This column discusses the remaining two patterns: ritual and deceit.

What has survival to do with ritual? Ritual in its most basic sense refers to a past successful practice providing safety and/or success. It thus becomes a standard for future conduct. Let me illustrate.

Old Dino, a brontosaurus, plods along Farm to Market Road 178 on the way to its watering hole. Suddenly, Dino sees a menacing tyrannosaurus rex. Dino makes a hasty retreat. But Dino still needs to get to the watering hole. What is an old reptile to do?

Well, it gets off FM 178 and finds an old narrow lane leading to its destination. The next day the same scenario repeats itself. Dino is on his way to the spa. T.R. roars and spits. Dino beats a retreat. Dino uses the old lane. On day 3, Dino doesn't even bother to try FM 178. He plods safely and securely on his hidden path. A safe procedure is remembered. Bingo, a ritual has been established.

Reluctance to accept new ideas, to change customary ways, is based on behavior imprinted in our reptilian brains. Ritual makes use of past behavior that has proven safe. Even if the old way is not as effective as a new procedure, there is a tendency to reject the new. Resistance to change, once a safe routine is established, is embedded in human neural functions reaching back in time to our reptilian ancestors. It makes little difference whether we are considering new corporate policies or anything else calling for a change from established routines.

I want to iterate that the reptilian brain is essential to survival. We do need our own territory to survive. Hierarchy not only brings order but also allows us to organize work and play in an efficient manner. Ritual provides precedents permitting us to advance without having to reinvent the wheel every time we turn around.

It is the downside of our reptilian ancestry that can make life so very difficult. When rituals become ends in themselves, they tend to become counter-productive. At times we maintain precedents for no other reason than to obey the dictates of the R-complex. Precedents taking on authority for no other reason than their transmission from one generation to the next can enslave people to meaningless practices. Tradition for the sake of tradition puts blinders on creative thinking.

One excellent example of such a condition can be found in the American legal system. I am deeply appreciative of the rule of "stare decisis." This is the legal procedure requiring judges to follow established laws and decisions. Without stare decisis the law would be even more of a jungle than present practices have made of it. But precedent for the sake of precedent can have a most unjust and socially destructive effect.

Take the case of Billy Ray McDaniels vs. The State of Texas, 642 SW 2nd, 785. There is no disagreement about the facts of the case. Billy Ray McDaniels raped a twenty-one year old newly married female college student. The attack took place in a back room of a store where both worked. Justice Truman Roberts said, "The appellant [the rapist] threatened to kill [her] before the sexual act occurred. He kept the knife in his hand at all times, except during the act of sexual intercourse. Even then, the knife was within easy reach."

There was no question in the minds of any of the justices of the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals that the rape happened, that Billy Ray McDaniels was the rapist and that neither trial judge nor jury had committed any reversible errors. Yet a majority of the Honorable Court reversed the jury's decision in the Lower Court. What happened? Justices Tom Davis and W.C. Davis (no relations) said, "We hold that the indictment in the present case is fundamentally defective for failure to acknowledge that the threatened harm was to be imminently inflicted." (Italics mine.)

The Texas Penal Code, T.C.A. Penal Code, Sec. 2103 (a) (2,) states that in order for an attacker to be found guilty of rape by threat of death, the act has to be imminently inflicted. The D.A. failed to put that one word into the indictment. I presume the legislators who wrote this law and the Justices who interpret it assume that a rapist might say, "I am holding this knife to your throat. I am going to rape you. Damn you, if you resist I am going to kill you. But don't worry Sweetie; I ain't going to do it imminently. I am going to rape you, but I won't do it imminently. I am going to slap you around if you holler, but it won't be done imminently."

If such evidence were to be introduced at a trial, the accused could not be found guilty of rape. Threat and deed have to take place imminently. One does wonder at the mental faculties of those writing this law. If the rape does not occur imminently, it would not occur. Whenever it happens, it has to be, ipso facto, imminently.

Of course, there was no evidence in the McDaniels case that threat and deed did not take place imminently. However, a previous decision had overturned a conviction because another D.A. had left out "imminently" in the indictment in another rape case. So the Justices now felt that stare decisis must be honored. Because another Court could not see its way clear to deal with the issue in a rational manner, the Court in the MacDaniel case repeated the same idiocy. Surely, our system of laws can be upheld with the power of reason and a sense of justice. But that is not the case. What is involved here?

The overarching power of the R-complex makes us blind to innovations. We follow precedents even if it serves no real purpose in particular cases. In order to defend primordial drives we clothe our reptilian behavior with seemingly good reasons. But upon closer examination we find that our reptilian brains have duped us. What seem to be rational clarifications are nothing but sugar coatings of base instincts.

The following is a most important thought: the reptilian brain is incapable of speech. In order to justify its every action, it "orders" the neocortex to furnish plausible reasons for the unreasonable. The basal ganglia sets the agenda and the neocortex verbalizes our most heinous deeds. The neocortex does not subject the demands of the R-complex to a scrutiny based on reason. The 240,000,000 year-old reptile sets the agenda. The 3,000,000 year old neocortex, the "new kid on the block," obeys the orders of its granddad.

So church fathers in the name of truth defended their demands forcing Galileo to recant. Powerful church leaders of the present defend the teaching of creationism as science. In God's name they seek to prevent the teaching of birth control and protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Quoting the Bible, they become homophobic.

Orthodox leaders in Islamic countries want their women to be neither seen nor heard! Orthodox Christians want their wives to be subservient to their husbands. Blind obedience to ritualistic practices demands the neocortex to find "rational" precedents to defend the indefensible. And blindly we stumble along the road of ignorance. Reason, justice, and mercy are lost as the reptilian brain sets the agenda for senseless behavior.

Politicians instinctively know human dependence on ritual. The American flag flies at rallies when the substance of the meeting is to promote provincial agendas at the expense of justice and equity. Nationally known religious leaders are paraded before the crowds when we install a new president. They are there, for the most part, not to advance equitable causes but as window dressing to dupe the assembled crowd into making a subconscious connection between the "old-time religion" and the new President of the United States. The reptilian brain feels quite comfortable with such actions even though they are a charade and a farce.

Not knowing that our brains are three brains, we accord behavior generated in the R-complex the same authority as rational and empathetic conduct. And we repeat the same old mistakes, the same old hatreds. It is not only in the Balkans that ethnic groups are continuously at war; our own brains have Balkanized our behavior.

The final imprint in the reptilian brain is the deceit factor. What has deceit to do with survival? A stalking lioness does not roar as she approaches her prey in the Serengeti Plain. If she were to announce her intent, the fleet-footed gazelles would be long gone. There would be no supper for her or her pride that night. No, a lioness must, in order to eat and survive, cover up her intent. Deception is necessary for survival; without deceit, many species would starve to death.

The deceit factor is deeply imprinted in the basal ganglia of the human brain. That explains the mendacity permeating our culture. In "The Day America Told the Truth," we are brought face to face with the extent of lying in our culture. The authors, James Patterson and Peter Kim, claim that 86 percent of us regularly lie to our parents. Seventy-five percent of us lie to our friends, and 69 percent lie to our lovers.

Twenty-five percent of us would abandon our families for $10,000,000 and 23 percent for that amount of money would become prostitutes for a week or more. These statistics, cited on pages 38 and 66, do not reflect the mores a people who claim to be cultured, civilized, and God-fearing. Explanation of the pervasiveness of our mendacity will be found, I believe, in the wiring of our reptilian brains. Our first instinctive commitment to ourselves is to survive. When conditions present themselves that may threaten our "territory," an automatic system defuses that risk. We will lie to defend our space. Deceit is deeply etched in our reptilian brains.

If Arthur Bremer had not stalked Governor George Wallace, the latter would probably not have been shot. The attainment of self-serving goals could probably not take place in many cases if the predator did not keep his intent secret. The reptilian brain knows no ethics. Regretfully, what nature intended as a survival mechanism, has taken on a self-defeating characteristic in humans. Deceit for our kind, unchecked by the prefrontal cortex, is most dangerous to humankind.

It is rather amazing the degree to which we accept lying in our culture. President Clinton certainly was not truthful about the Lewinsky affair. The C.E.O.'s of the tobacco companies surely lied before Congress when they said that tobacco was not addictive. Lt. Col. North admitted to lying before Congress. Yet, not a single one suffered a serious penalty for speaking untruths. Something deep in their reptilian brains instructed them to deny, deny, deny. "If you don't deny," says the R-complex, "your goose is cooked." It then instructs the neocortex to come up with all sorts of excuses, hoping that survival will be insured. And sure enough, in these three cases, no fatal price was exacted by our system.

Of course, one can't blame a reptile for protecting its own skin. But when the rest of us accept the lies and fail to hold liars accountable, then our claim to be the leading free nation in the world has a hollow ring. What nature intended as a physiological survival mechanism can have dire consequences in the human enterprise.

Who knew what before September 11? Someone in a high position must have known that bin Laden was up to something. Else we are sure wasting a lot of money on an ineffective intelligence apparatus. However, for whatever reason, the deceit factor made it easy for the information from being publicized.

Kenny Boy and his cohorts, including Arthur Anderson, knew a lot more than they were willing to admit. Mendacity is deeply etched in the human brain. It permeates our society. The reptilian brain is alive and well. Until we recognize and admit its power over human behavior we shall just muddle along and become victims to our own lies.

• There is a therapsid in your family tree – part two, section one

•  

• The limbic system: family, play and games

(YellowTimes.org) – Genealogies are fascinating business but sometimes we find the unexpected in our family tree. There may be a horse thief or a hoodlum in our past, but then again, there might be a princess or a poetess gracing our line of descent.

Oh, I can hear some of the YellowTimes.org readers exclaiming, "For God's sake John, we want hot stuff about the President of the United States (POTUS) and Israel; about Cheney's et al involvement with Al Qaeda. We don't want to hear about genealogies!" And right you are in your desire to learn the latest about the seamy side of life inside the Greenbelt, Anderson's home office, and the secret meetings of our vice president (VIPOTUS) with the oil and gas folks.

But my point is that we will never comprehend human behavior if we do not understand some basic functions of the human brain. We will never change the shameful events we call history unless we have some knowledge of the neural circuits responsible for our actions.

Tracing humankind's origins we find animals called therapsids branching off from the dinosaurs. They eventually developed into mammal-like creatures and millions of years later split into the marsupials and placentals. What is so important to our self-understanding is that the brains of these creatures, containing entirely new neural strata totally unknown to reptiles, are also part of the human brain. There is agreement among brain physiology experts that this brain, the limbic system, contains the circuitry for moods and emotions. MacLean's research further suggests that the capacity for infant nurture and play is also contained in the limbic system.

Therapsid origins began about 180,000,000 years. While much younger than its older neighbor, the basal ganglia, the limbic system is no newcomer to the world. One of the monumental behavioral differences between reptiles and mammals is the ability of the latter to not only bear young but to also nurture them.

Some year ago, it was my privilege to work on an Earthwatch research project with leatherback turtles. They were magnificent creatures weighing between 800 to 1,000 pounds. We watched them make their way laboriously from sea to land. There they dug nests, deposited between 60 to over 100 eggs, and then lumbered back to the Caribbean. None of these "mothers" would ever see a single one of her offspring. If they ever did, they would not recognize it and it certainly would not recognize them. One substantive difference between reptiles and the ancient mammals is the capacity of the latter to nurse and nurture their offspring. With the advent of therapsids, the family became a reality.

1. The Family

Compare the behavior of a leatherback with that of a field mouse. About three inches long, the latter weighs no more than a few ounces. Although the reptile is 26,000 times heavier, the mouse's brain is far more complex than that of the turtle. The tiny mouse cleans its babies after birth and tends them. She returns to the nest periodically, lies on her side and presents her nipples to the squealing brood. She stays with her babies until they are self-sufficient.

The complexity of the neural capacity of a small field mouse exceeds the leatherback by an exponent of inexpressible magnitude. A hundred billion galaxies pale into insignificance when compared to the richness of life generated by the limbic system. To me, one of the wonders of life can be observed in a seal rookery. Thousands of cows and calves generate an unbearable cacophony of noise. Yet, each cow recognizes her own cub by a squeal unique to her offspring. This voice recognition is a significant factor for the basis of the foundation of the family. Among humans, the family is but a few hundred thousand years old. However, its institutional origin lies in neural fibers dating back about 180,000,000 years.

It is not my purpose to discuss the many problems associated with the family in our age. In mammalian species, existing without the complexity of the triune brain, infant nurture takes place instinctively. Only in higher primates do problems develop. We have no record of parental abuse or juvenile delinquency among mice. The question I raise is to what extent does our society take seriously the nurturing of the young? While mothers instinctively are aware of the need to nourish and foster their young, systemic problems centering on social, political, and religious dogmas, condemn millions of children to a less advantageous start in life. The complexity of our brains, while embracing neural capabilities for family nurture, also presents unique problems for our species.

When indiscriminate consumer spending fuels a society's economy, the family takes a beating. When personal worth is based on amassing "things," the family experiences tensions. When divorce between parents of small children is to be had for the asking, the family suffers. When politicians talk about "family values" but vote against "Time Off" for significant family needs and vote against childcare, it is the family that takes a beating. When religious fiats decry birth controls, unwanted, undernourished and neglected children become part our culture's human tragedy. When educational opportunities are based on the part of town where one's parents happen to live, families suffer. Instead of nurturing all of our young, we nurture opportunistic competitive rivalries.

The fact is that our species attempts to override Nature's imprint for proper infant and child nurture. All other mammals need only the instincts of the limbic system to nurture their offspring. Neither elands nor elephants need conscious guidelines to nurture their young. Maybe in more primitive days, long, long ago, humans could rear their children by merely following the dictates of their intuition. However, the complexity of our society demands more than mere instinctive ordering of nurture. Children killing children, children addicted to drugs, children disrespectful of teachers and parents, children committing suicide are ample evidence that something is amiss in our society when it comes to rearing our young. Passing school voucher legislation and permitting children to pray in school are hardly answers to the perplexing problems we face.

2. Play and games

Whence the human desire to play? Reptiles do not play; they lead solitary lives. Mammals live in social interaction. Puppies chase each other while young snakes do not. Kittens play while crocodiles do not. What we call play is but nature's way of teaching the young the art of getting along within their own family. Playful activities serve the purpose of socializing mammals. There is no question that humans need to and like to play. The toy industry earns billions of dollars annually selling toys and games. America is awash in Little Leagues for all sorts of sports. Certainly such activities are needed and properly conducted contribute to the nurture and well being of the individual child. But leave it to our species to mess up a good thing. Consider the following two scenarios:

Scenario 1. On a Saturday morning, children and parents gather for a softball game on the local playground. The kids are dressed up in uniforms imitating Major League athletes. There are even little girls acting as cheerleaders. Coaches instruct the kids. Adults act as umpires. Grown-ups make all decisions. When the game ends, sundry adults congratulate the winners. The losers have disappointment written across their faces.

Scenario 2. On another Saturday more than 65 years ago, my friends and I scratched out bases and lines on a dirt lot. We had a couple of old beat-up softballs and three or four old bats. One of us acted as umpire and called balls and strikes. Things did not always go smoothly. Strong arguments ensued whether a certain pitch was called correctly. We argued about a close play at home plate. Our voices were raised and emotions became heated. Yet the disagreement was settled. Play continued. We learned the necessity of giving and taking! We were not Einsteins. However, we were smart enough to learn that lesson. There were no adults around to take charge of anything. When the game ended a good time was had by all.

In the Atlantic Monthly, March 1987, Bruno Bettelheim, M.D. former Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Education, Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Chicago draws a sharp distinction between these two scenarios. He called the activity controlled by adults a "game" and the other one a "play." Play is the child's way of working out problems through an inner-directed process. In play a child learns that innate self-centeredness must be reconciled with larger societal needs. It teaches the child how to cope, how to create, how to settle disputes, how to take success and failure. Play teaches children to adapt to the world in which they find themselves. The learning comes, so to speak, from the "inside out."

Scenario 2 fulfills this purpose. In the sandlot baseball game, the purpose is not only to win but also to have a good time. That end can only be achieved as the players themselves resolve problem situations. If there is no solution, the game stops and no one wins. Bettelheim maintains that play teaches children to control their aggressiveness in order to attain their own goals. Bettelheim believes that qualities of perseverance, creativity, and the development of a rich inner life result from children's playful activities.

Scenario 1 on the other hand presents us with a case of "Games." Games are activities where outside authorities impose all the rules. There is no opportunity for children to learn the necessary skills for socialization. The emphasis is on conformity to externally imposed behavior. Controlling adults tell the child what to do and what not to do. Certainly, every human being must learn to live by the rules of the game; however, opportunity must be given through inner-directed play to develop the self-discipline needed for mature living. In the case of organized sports, the children are totally controlled by adults. They do not develop the ability to solve their own problems. The main purpose in the adult controlled situation is not to have a good time, but to win.

Bettelheim also stresses the fact that a democracy cannot survive if its citizens do not learn how to play properly. The professor, I believe, put his finger on the right spot when he claims that democracy needs mature individuals who respond to life in terms of disciplined, socialized insights. It is my conviction that our culture is presently failing in the task of developing a sufficient number of such individuals.

One obvious result of our failure to let children develop maturity through games can be seen in the political process. We find ourselves in the midst of serious problems and yet the administration plays games. By executive order, documents belonging in the public domain are whisked away from the scrutiny of independent scholars. Matters affecting the entire world are handled with disdain for other sovereign nations. The national debt is again taking on threatening proportions and anyone disagreeing with the administration is branded as unpatriotic. The mentality to exploit and to be exploited, to some significant degree, must surely be the result of participating in too many games and never learning the self-discipline that comes from playing.

POTUS, VIPOTUS, and sundry Kenny Boys strut around with the swagger of college fraternity presidents whose daddies just made large contributions to the Chapter. They have been involved in games all their lives. Never having had to integrate their activities into a larger social context, now that they are controlling alphas, they exert their positions in an autocratic, domineering manner. When someone else calls all the shots, the child cannot develop the ability to live as a responsible social being. Individuals from "excellent" backgrounds with degrees from "prestigious" institutions think nothing of insider trading, defrauding stockholders, abrogating Constitutional rights, and seeing the masses of the people as mere political/economic/religious increments. I suggest that these people have never learned to play and thus are asocial beings. Little foxes have a better chance of survival within their pack than do millions of people within the "Family of Humankind."

Is it possible that Kenny Boy and POTUS in their drive for more and more power disregard the social consequences of their actions because in childhood they never played and failed to learn socializing skills? Surely, more is involved in the development of such self-aggrandizing personalities than the absence of play. And yet, I can't help wondering if many of our society's alphas were denied the benefit of play as children?

Nature has provided a technique teaching the young social behavior. It seems to be a method whereby some of the instincts of the R-complex are channeled into more co-operative behavior. The schizophysiology of our brains has developed behavior that is hell-bent on bypassing the needed inner-development achieved in play. When a generation comes along that has been deprived of play, you have a people whose leaders act in a totalitarian manner and whose masses are quite willing to be the proverbial sheep. It is a condition just begging for a dictator/savior to keep on calling all the shots in the game of life.

There is a therapsid in your family tree - part two, section two

The limbic system: emotions

– There is an interesting story of lust and sex in the Bible. It is really spicy stuff. Surprisingly, those who seek to censor our morality have not sought to strike that incident from the Good Book and have the author blacklisted. There cannot be much doubt that the sinfulness of this narrative far exceeds the immorality of the exposed breast of the Statute of Justice that Ashcroft commanded to be clothed. Amnon, one of King David's sons, had an overpowering desire to seduce his half-sister Tamar. She, in turn, met his blazing passion with stony silence. With the help of a friend, Amnon found a pretext inducing Tamar to come to his private chambers. Then Amnon raped her. (2 Samuel 13)

After Amnon satisfied his lust he "was seized with a very great loathing for her; indeed, his loathing was ever greater than the lust he had felt for her." Why hasn't Hollywood picked up that story? Can't you just see some sex kitten, maybe the "Playmate of the Year," playing Tamar? I can also think of several esteemed politicians on both sides of the aisle who might portray Amnon.

Amnon's love turned to hate with the change of circumstances. Feelings depend upon the shifting happenings in our lives. As weather is reflected in barometric changes, so our moods and emotions are images of our internal responses to life's ups and downs. Our emotions run deep but they are changeable. Love can turn to hate. Warm feelings for friends can turn to icy rejection. Joy in the morning can turn to sadness by nightfall.

A. The origin of emotions

The hypothalamus, an integral part of the limbic system, is the impresario of our emotional behavior. The genesis of our emotions can be traced back about 180,000,000 years to the therapsids. You may recall that what we may properly call the beginning of intellect had its origin no more about 3 to 5 million years ago. Is it any wonder that our emotions are far more powerful than our intellects? You know what happens when you try to discuss a problem rationally with someone who has deep feelings about the matter. It is mostly a waste of time, is it not?

Emotions do not originate in our highest brain centers. They are primordial responses to external events. Neither gods nor devils cause our elation nor do they conspire to force us to act the brute. Our ancient brains provide the capability to either wear halos or to sprout horns. One of the critical factors to the survival as a free people depends upon our understanding the origin of our feelings.

Most of us have a tendency to accord whatever behavior happens to occur at any given moment the same degree of authenticity. We do not realize that much of our behavior stems from the evolutionary heritage of animals less sophisticated than we are. Reason, logic, and linear thinking play no roles when emotions are aroused. In all probability neither religious dogmatists nor political charlatans know much about the genesis of human emotionality. However, they sure know how to use emotions to their advantage. When reptilian instincts of territory, hierarchy, ritual and deceit merge with raw emotions, the result is a witch's brew. Shakespeare's "Eye of newt, and toe of frog, wool of bat, and tongue of dog," is but a mild tonic compared to the bitter bane forced down our throats by dogma and canon.

B. Emotions and religion

The Judeo/Christian tradition makes people feel guilty for the mere presence of emotions. In Matthew 5:27, we are told that if a man lusts after a woman, it were better for him to pluck out his eyes. The opinion is advanced that it is better to go to heaven blind than rot in hell with 20/20 vision. That is pretty stout medicine. I wonder how many men and women can pass that exam and enter the Pearly Gates?

Let's be honest with ourselves. If we all plucked out our eyes because we felt like crawling into bed with someone who is not our own spouse, there would be an acute shortage of seeing-eye dogs. We are also told in Matthew 5:22 that anger against our brother results in judgment. It does not say we shall be condemned when we ram the guy's car that almost took off our front fender. It says that the mere feeling of anger will result in our getting whipped by the Almighty.

Of course, most people will respond to sexual situations with emotions. Of course, most people will sense anger when in a threatened situation. The church has convinced us that those feelings are sinful in God's sight. If we ever expect to get to heaven, then we must be purged from these awful feelings. And who will do the cleansing for us? Well, of course, the church. So the hierarchy has us where it wants us. We will feel the emotions of lust. We will experience the emotion of anger. We are made to believe that they are very, very sinful. Therefore we become enslaved to the church because it assures us that it has the way that leads to our forgiveness and to eternal life.

We are in a no win situation. Emotions arise in a very ancient part of the brain. We have little control over their arousal. Of course, we can learn to manage our emotions, but the church has convinced us that the mere presence of the emotions constitutes sin. So we are enslaved to church doctrine if we ever hope to find forgiveness. We cannot escape our emotionality - nor can we escape the church's enslavement if we hope to find God's mercy. It is also, of course, one heck of a way to raise money. If you are assured that an offended God will forgive your nasty feelings if you put some money in the offering tray, you may be quite willing to contribute so God will not punish you for your grubby, filthy, disgusting feelings.

Knowing that emotions arise in ancient parts of the brain, we can conclude that the arousal of lust and anger are neither good nor bad. Emotions arise in a part of the brain over which we have no control. Emotions are a fundamental quality of our lives. I draw a very sharp distinction between the presence of the emotion and our management or their mismanagement. To condemn someone for the presence of emotions differs not much from finding them guilty for their heartbeat. Pulse and emotions originate in ancient neural circuits. To be judged for their existence is to condemn life itself.

Only the active manifestation of emotions, not their mere presence, raises moral issues. If I feel like beating the hell out of you because I am angry but do not act on my impulse, the "bad" never happened. If I feel like bedding down some cute chick, but do not follow through on my feeling, the "bad" never happened.

The teachings of the church have us in a "no win" situation. Lust and anger are parts of the landscape of our lives. It is not their presence that is evil. Their presence is natural. The evil only comes when we fail to manage them. But our tradition condemns us for their mere presence. This gives the ecclesiastical establishment tremendous power over our lives. One of the most liberating moves the church could make is to clarify this issue. Maybe then Mr. Ashcroft won’' feel so threatened by the mere sight of an aluminum breast. For heaven's sake, what would that man do in the Louvre? Go nuts?

C. Emotions and politics

Naturally politicians know what the church knows. If a people's emotions can be aroused then intellect and logic will take a back seat. America is in the midst of an emotional binge at the present time. September 11th aroused our deepest fears. A foe attacked us on our own turf. Anger, fear, revenge, and dread flooded our senses in a way that we have not experienced before. In response to these deep feelings, we fly the Stars and Stripes at our homes, on our cars, on office buildings, and wherever we can attach a flag. We put patriotic pins on our lapels. Being true opportunistic materialists, designers made T-Shirts, sweatshirts, bandanas, and hats with the design of the flag. We swore we would get the bastards who dared to invade us.

Under the flurry of emotionalism parading for patriotism, our President was quick to see enemies in everyone who disagreed with his agenda. The Attorney General saw the presence of terrorists in every neighborhood. Inflamed by passion we little realize that we are moving towards a police state.

Civil liberties are being limited under the pretense of making us secure. Rewards to supporters who raised millions for POTUS come in the form of throwing more and more money at defense industry giants. So caught up were we our emotions that we were willing to do anything to protect ourselves. And whenever there might have been a bit of relaxing of our fears, our newly appointed Home Security Chief would issue another warning. It has even been suggested that anyone disagreeing with the President's program is not a patriotic American. Well, he or she might not be a docile sheep following an agenda leading into the vortex of an American dictatorship, but isn't it carrying things a bit too far to accuse dissenters of not being patriotic Americans?

Years ago, long before there was even a thought of 9/11, the industrial psychologist Maslow wrote, "The safety needs can become very urgent on the social scene whenever there are real threats to law, to order, to the authority of society … A common, almost expectable reaction is the easier acceptance of dictatorship or of military rule." Politicians take advantage of our raw emotions to perpetuate their power and the agendas of the lobbyists who funnel money into their campaigns. And the Constitution and the Bill of Rights be damned.

But the usurpation of our emotionality by politicians predates 9/11 by a long shot. In the 1950's and even later there was a concern about making America a more just and equitable country. The Middle Class, the backbone of any democracy, was doing well. A sense of assurance was felt as Social Security and Medicare provided people with some guarantee that their retirement years would know a measure of stability. But then strange things began to happen. I am not saying that there was a cabal to destroy our freedoms. But there was an ever-growing development of materialistic opportunism. Labor Unions were disparaged. Now don't misunderstand me, I know that some unions were fronts for Mafia-type rings, but there was a general belittling of labor unions. Businesses became ever larger and larger. As they made more money, they influenced more and more legislation favorable to their particular interests. The common good was shelved.

Either by intuition or by design, the Kenneth Lay and Anderson prototypes had to fill an emotional need in the lives of America. All too many churches became unwitting participants in the destruction of righteousness and justice in America. Profound hot button issues became the order of the day. It was proclaimed from many pulpits that America has lost its way because prayers were not said in public schools, because abortions became the legal right of women, because homosexuals were given protection under the law. And all these moralistic issues, it was preached, caused God to forsake our land.

This suspended attention away from the real "front burner issues" such as health care, the elimination of the Middle Class, corporate rape of the masses, and spoliation of the environment. When Enron created an artificial energy crisis in California, costing the people billions of dollars, our President said he could not do anything about it! And all the time he and Kenny Boy were big buddies. Furthermore, POTUS claimed that Jesus was his philosopher.

So it is only natural, these purveyors of religious charlatanism would claim, that God cares more about prayer in public schools than children without medical services. We were told that God is quite angry because some women are getting abortions but we didn't care that minimum wages did not keep up with inflation. Channeling our emotions on homosexuals, we failed to see that as tax cuts favored the wealthy, less and less money was available for public schools, for roads, and for other necessary infrastructures.

Well, I have news for America. We can say prayer in school three times a day and not another single child will get medical insurance. We can eliminate all abortions and minimum wage will not go up one red cent. We can again become homophobic and there will not be another dollar for our schools or our roads.

Politicians have turned America's emotions away from the real issues. We should be angry that the middle class is disappearing instead of worrying about prayers in school. We should be angry that the rich get ever more and more tax benefits instead of worrying about abortions. We should be angry that rivers and the land are being polluted instead of thinking we are doing God a favor by becoming homophobic.

The emotional components of the limbic system play a significant part in our lives. Church and politicians understand that and both have done a number on America.

It's not enough to have smarts

– Popular wisdom perceives that our President has not been blessed with an over-endowment of intellectual acuity. However, there can be little doubt that some of the men around him have plenty of gray matter. Folks like John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others probably score pretty high on a Binet, and yet their combined smarts have our society teetering on its edge. A widening gulf between the Superrich and the rest of us will create social problems of unimaginable dimensions. Lack of an intelligent long-range energy program may bring about economic chaos. Shortsighted monetary and tax policies already seriously harm our country's infrastructure. And let's not even mention damage done to the environment. Yet, all these smart folks in D.C. don't seem to have a clue about the long-term effects of their wheeling and dealing.

What does it take, besides smarts, to pull up the human species from its brutal, consistent practice of genocide to something resembling a humane being? I believe the answer can be found in the most recently developed part of the human brain, the prefrontal cortex. The concluding part in this series discusses this neural constellation of the triune brain.

In this column I am making some comments about the neocortex. I want to state in the very beginning that the neocortex does not provide the solution to our problems. If anything, it just complicates our existence.

The neocortex

About 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 years ago, with a sudden burst of unparalleled activity measured in cosmic time, the neomammalian brain entered the world's stage. From these early beginnings in our forebears the neocortex evolved into the complex organ it is today. Human accomplishments resulting from this advance defy description. Where shall we start a list of our species' triumphs? Is it the power to write? To develop mathematics? To split the atom? To compose? We must marvel no less at the grandeur of Egypt's Pyramids than we do listening to a Beethoven symphony. Surely Shakespeare's Othello is as majestic as the discovery of the molecular structure of DNA. All of our accomplishments stem from the neural capabilities of the neocortex. It is a veritable treasure chest of past achievements and of future possibilities.

However, our species has not won the war over its own bestial nature. The major factor enslaving us to old brutal ways is our bondage to the unresolved reality of the brain's three competing drivers. Of course, the old reptile wins most of the battles. As long as we thought our brains were one integrated whole there might be some justification to assign our benign or violent behavior to some divine/satanic cause.

Instincts to expand tribal boundaries were engulfed in the flames of passions. These profound feelings found a voice in rationalizations developed in the neocortex. The saber clashing took on the voice of God. Arrows tearing apart flesh were but expressing the will of the creator. Some God? Eh? But now we know better! We know there is a reptile in our brains that can dominate our behavior to the exclusion of any humane concerns.

The drive for territory and power is not the voice God. It is but the expression of our most primal instincts. No God or gods will stop the carnage. No amount of fervent prayer will make "the wolf live with the lamb, the leopard to lie down with the kid, the calf and the lion and the fatling together." (Isaiah 11: 6) The title of the book of our lives must be changed from "A Destiny under God" to "Human Destiny."

The neocortex enables some members of our species to compose the Titan Symphony, to paint Nude Descending a Staircase, and to understand the nature and function of DNA. At the same time, we need to accept the fact that such greatness is but one side of the neocortex.

The other side built Concentration Camps and Gulags, indulges in the grossest manifestation of conspicuous consumption while refusing to fund equal educational opportunities for all. It indulges in the vilest of inequities under the shameful cover of "Private Enterprise." Of course, without tax support and special legislation, our "Private Enterprise" would not be the voracious, gluttonous beast it has become. It is the power of the neocortex that writes all this legislation favoring the rapacious alphas of our society.

We have yet to avail ourselves of the power of the neocortex to translate into reality the ideal that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Tell some of the folks living in parts of East Austin, Texas that that is the expression of the American dream and they will laugh in your face!

We do not want to accept as fact that some essential qualities between earthworms and humans are much the same. Individual earthworms do not manifest many differences; they do not have personalities. One is pretty much like another.

The same can be said for the physiology of human beings. Gray's Anatomy applies to all of us. The sameness of our species transcends religious, political, ethnic, and all other surface differences. We all breathe the same air and die within minutes when deprived of oxygen. None of us can long exist without water. None escapes the reality of our biological common heritage. Just below the surface of our differences, we are all pretty much alike. All Indians and all Pakistanis, all members of Al Qaeda and all CIA agents, all Republicans and all Communists, all people of all colors, religions, features and languages will "bleed when pricked and laugh when tickled, die when poisoned, and revenge when wronged." (Thanks to the Bard.)

It is the rather insignificant differences such as skin color, religious beliefs, and ethnic background that play havoc with our species. Psychologically we tell a story that belies our essential sameness. We hate. We kill. The problem with our neocortex lies in the fact that the reptilian brain, at times, dominates it. Seeking to justify its behavior it "commands" the neocortex to produce mountains of rationalizations defending reptilian prejudices. Atrocities of kings were defended as being their "divine" right. Kenny Boy claims that what amounts to his theft of pension funds is just one aspect of "free enterprise."

Our very intelligence is our worst enemy in the efforts to achieve a world of peace and justice. Primitive territorial instincts have been elevated to an almost sacrosanct duty to destroy our perceived enemies. The neocortex furnishes a high level of self-justification and plausible reasons for our devious behavior. In our minds we crave righteous explanations to fly our militant banners bearing the inscriptions, "Race against Race," "Religion against Religion," "Nation against Nation." The reptilian brain dominates our behavior. Our country is divided into hostile factions and each passing year brings new hostilities.

What can we do, no, what must we do, to stop the insanity? As long as we thought we had one integrated brain, our behavior could be rationalized. But that "old dog won't hunt any longer." We know that three drivers are competing for control of our behavior. Our task in the 21st Century is to understand just how much of our primal egocentric behavior is justified by intellectually rationalizing our selfishness.

How can we direct the neocortex to deliver us from our parochial self-interests and our self-defeating submission to essentially meaningless doctrines? To set ourselves to that task, it seems to me, is far more important than to build computer chips around molecules so we can have an almost infinite amount of storage.

Will today's dominant alphas fight to perpetuate the ignorance of the past? The battle cry of fundamentalists has ever and a day been the same. "God," they cried 400 years ago, "ordained that the earth is at the center of the universe. Anyone teaching otherwise is a heretic and must be silenced." Well, somewhere there could be an ignorant fringe group still believing our planet to be at the center of the universe. But most of us know that it is not so. Today's self-styled conservatives believe that teaching the nature of Nature will bring about the wrath of God. Little do they realize that their dogmatism is a fundamental cause of much of the world's ills. "God," they still cry today.

Present scientific understanding negates the dogma that human beings resulted from a special divine act of creation. Of course, the church fathers shake in their boots when they are confronted with such insights. They are in deadly fear what the implementation of that reality will do their institutions. Certainly, their resistance has nothing to do with God, with truth, or with rightness. It is just another verse of the ancient claim that kings and Popes rule by divine right. Those assumptions have proven to be wrong.

The future will prove dogmatism to be the sham that it is. Denials of profound insights into the reality of Nature based on nothing more than ancient provincial beliefs are just so much hot air. I am certainly not claiming that anyone has the final word on the subject of the nature of Nature. However, present knowledge, at the very least, presents us with significant kernels of new insights into the way Nature works. Today's fundamentalists simply repeat the second and third stanza of the ancient folly.

The modern era was committed to the idea that knowledge will drive away ancient superstitions and myths. Certainly, investigative science has opened the door to wondrous progress. Enthusiasm created by science, resulting from the potentials residing in the neocortex caused J. Bronowski to say, "Knowledge is our destiny." Carl Sagan concludes his insightful book, The Dragons of Eden, with that quotation. The wheels of science and discovery are churning forward and no stopping place appears in sight.

However, I take exception to the idea that mere knowledge is our destiny. The knowledge of Greek's Golden Age was erased with human blood. The storehouse of insights developed in the Arab world between the 9th and 13th centuries did not stop human brutality. The teachings of Buddha have not eliminated the confrontations between India and Pakistan. Gandhi has turned into a footnote.

The modern Scientific Revolution coexisted with the most brutal Gulags and Concentration Camps. Both beauty and brutality have their genesis in the neocortex. Much more is needed than mere knowledge. Needed is the conscious will to transcend beastly powers residing in our brains with the insights of the prefrontal cortex. That will be the discussion of the final column in this series.

It's not enough to have smarts

– This is the final column of the series outlining the evolutionary development of the human brain. There will be few references to current political/economic/religious matters because the behavioral traits embedded in the prefrontal cortex are abysmally absent from our society.

The addition of the prefrontal cortex to the human brain allows our species to take the big step from merely being human to becoming humane. MacLean writes about this latest 100 cc addition to our brains, happening a mere 40,000 to 50,000 years ago, in A Mind of Three Minds, (pp.339-340)

…In the progress from Neanderthal to Cro-Magnon man, one sees the human forehead develop from a low brow to a high brow. Underneath that heightened brow is the prefrontal cortex. There are clinical indications that the prefrontal cortex provides foresight in planning for ourselves and others, and also helps us gain insight into the feelings of others. The prefrontal cortex is the only neocortex that looks inward to the inside world. … In designing for the first time a creature that shows concern for suffering of other living things, nature seems to have attempted an 180-degree turnabout from what had been a reptile-eat-reptile and a dog-eat-dog world.

I am indebted to Robert Wright's book The Moral Animal for my change of assumptions about the prefrontal cortex. On page 54, he supports the idea that more recently developed brain functions simply enable lower brain centers to operate more efficiently.

The prefrontal cortex gave our sires a "leg up" to compete more successfully. For instance, this new cortex provided the ability for long-range planning. This is something far superior to a squirrel's mere instinct to store up acorns for the winter months. The ability to plan permitted our forebears to make complicated plans for a hunt. In its process, evolution gave Cro-Magnons a better chance at survival.

Along with the capability for long-range planning, the prefrontal cortex endowed our species with the ability to empathize. Let me give you a possibly humorous scenario for the development of the ability to sense the feeling of others.

Cartoons depict an early Cro-Magnon dragging the object of his affections into his cave. The image shows a brute male, club in hand, dragging his lady fair by her hair. Once they were in the cave, one does not need much imagination to develop the next step of this scenario. Dragging a female into a cave seems to be a hard and laborious task. There must be a better way. There was. Empathy was the key.

One day our protagonist saw his lady fair stopping to smell a flower. His developing prefrontal cortex gave him the ability to realize that she enjoyed smelling the carnations. He identified with her. In the constant battle to mate with the most desirable female, a new little gene sneaked into the male's DNA. It had the capacity to sense the feelings of another person. It gave him an advantage in the quest to have children by her. After all, what better genes could there be to ensure perpetuation of the species than those of the precursors of Troy Aikman, physical strength and intelligence, and those of Martha Stewart, the consummate homemaker?

"Ah," he thought, "there is an easier way to get her into my cave than to club her and drag her by her hair." He picked a bunch of Lilies of the Valley and presented them to her. The rest is history.

She was so impressed with this seeming act of kindness, that she gladly followed him wherever he would lead. However, she was mistaken. His reason for presenting the flowers had more to do with his desire to impregnate her than with an act of kindness. The ability to sense another's feelings was used for the evolutionary requirement to bring together two strong gene pools.

It so happened that another member of the tribe saw this little scene. "Shucks," he said to himself. "I can do better than that." He got a bottle of Dom Perignon and the damsels flocked to his pad. Empathy, far from finding its genesis in some idealistic divine intervention, simply was another tool to achieve propagation of the species.

The chosen one really thought that he loved her when he invited her into his cave for a candle-lit supper. Why would he go to such troubles to play her favorite music, prepare the most delicious meal and present her with a bottle of such fine champagne? Why indeed? Little did she know!

I hope I am not giving away any male trade secrets when I say that little has changed in the intervening 40,000 or so years. Empathy enables us to sense what others like in order to gain influence over them. Of course, the female of the species has also learned this lesson well. Could it be that sweet, sweet women have also learned to use their ability to empathize in the pursuit of self-centered purposes? Of course not!

Richard Dawkins further explains the matter in "the selfish gene." His book provides the evidence that altruism is a trait given to our species in order to assist the improvement and continuation of the gene pool. On page 62 he says, "But the obvious first priority of a survival machine, (i.e. the human body) and of the brain that takes the decisions for it, are individual survival and reproductions." This does not mean that altruism must be limited to basically self-centered motives.

Recall that manual dexterity, joining thumb and forefinger, resulted in building the Temple at Luxor and the Cathedral at Chartres. A gene designed to hold tools eventually built Gothic spires and the Manhattan skyline.

I question whether this genetic capability foresaw the building of the Pyramids or the painting of the Mona Lisa. A simple genetic change, eons ago, eventually produced great works. There was no predetermined will that the joining of thumb and forefinger would produce Rodin's Kiss. But a genetic change to give members of our species a leg up in the struggle for survival has resulted not only in the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World but in 70,000 Wonders of the World.

So too, what began as a self-serving trait to sense the feelings of another for personal benefit can be nurtured into acts of altruism. The ability to sense the inner feelings of others provides the potential for genuine humane caring. Such concern, of course, can only result from the conscious and deliberate use of our prefrontal cortex. Just as intellect was used for purposes other than mere survival, (i.e. composing symphonies, painting, writing books) empathy can also be used for purposes other than enticing members of the fairer sex into our "caves."

Through conscious effort we can care! Certainly, it is better to live in a world where people have some concerns for each other than to live in a "dog-eat-dog" world. The balance between the need for biological self-preservation and social concerns can only be achieved through a rational understanding of the dynamics of human existence. An overarching query presenting itself is whether our species deserves to survive should it fail to develop genuine empathy?

We take our cue from the imprints in our various brains. The essential characteristics of all brain functions enhance the chance for survival. Any other results arise are a matter of happenstance.

We might like to think that a Guiding Hand from above determines our destiny, but all the evidence points to a contrary conclusion. Earthquakes happen in Turkey killing thousands. Tidal waves inundate Bangladesh killing hundreds upon hundreds and leaving tens of thousands homeless. Meteors or comets in the past have struck and in the future will strike our planet. Nature's way leads to unexpected results. Some we deem "good" and others we deem "bad." Although from nature's point of view, moral judgments are non-existent. The energy driving our universe knows nothing of good and evil. Only human interpretation assigns such values to our experiences.

In an effort to explain the "bad" our sires invented the fable of Adam and Eve eating one lousy apple. To blame all the evil in the world on that act just won't wash any more. It is intellectually far more honest to face the reality of the world. To introduce the God factor has not helped our species a great deal. Life is complicated and the unforeseen governs the cosmos.

On the most fundamental level, empathy is a survival function. Over the millennia, empathy became more refined. For us it is possible to respond to human needs with care and thoughtfulness. And I believe that by this slender threat hang all of our hopes to raise our species to a level of respectability and worthiness. When all of institutionalized religiosity will have had its day, its only enduring message echoing through the corridors of time will be its emphasis for humans to become humane.

The self-transcending traditions of the great religions are in accord on this point. It is, in my opinion, the only worthwhile gift presented to humankind by the religions of the world. At the heart of non-self-serving religions stands the admonition, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Jesus had the consummate guts to looks into the faces of the controlling alphas of his day and say, "I give you a new commandment that you love one another." (John 13:34) He then had the courage to tell these self-appointed usurpers of authority that their neighbors included their enemies.

What brought about the crucifixion of Jesus were not his miracles, his parables, and his sermons; what nailed him to the cross was his audacity to tell the controlling power structure that the most despised and disenfranchised had a right to a decent place under the sun.

Few are the individuals who have been able to transcend themselves in the history of the world. But there have always been some! Hundreds of years before the Common Era, we find these sayings, "When you come upon your enemy's ox or donkey going astray, you shall bring it back … When you see the donkey of one who hates you lying under its burden and you would hold back from setting it free, you must help to set it free … You shall not pervert the justice done to your poor in their lawsuits." (Exodus 23:4,5,6)

Even long ago of earliest Old Testament times, the presence of the prefrontal cortex asserted itself. In the midst of a world much harsher than our own, the strains of humanity's ultimate destiny became part of the ancient code. Like a silver cord, the challenge to be caring and mindful of others weaves itself throughout human history as the expression of its ultimate destiny.

Other religions add their voices exhorting their followers to behave in a caring manner. Hinduism's Code of Manu reads, "Wound not others, do no one injury by thought or deed, utter no word to pain thy fellow creature."

Lao Tzu in The Treasures taught, "I have Three Treasures. Guard them and keep the safe. The first is Love. The second is, never too much. The third is, never be first in the world."

Buddah in The Sutta Nipata says, "As a mother, even at the risk of her own life, protects her son, her only son, so let him cultivate love without measure toward all beings. Let him cultivate towards the whole world - above, below, around - a heart of love unstinted, unmixed with a sense of differing or opposing interests."

Not only from ancient sages comes the injunction to love. Contemporary psychiatrists add their voices to the wisdom of olden days. "Love is the active concern for the life and the growth of that which we love," is the definition given by Erich Fromm.

Henry Stack Sullivan says, "When the satisfaction or the security of another person becomes as significant to one as one's own security or sense of satisfaction, then the state of love exists. So far I know, under no other circumstances is a state of love present, regardless of the popular usage of the word."

Victor Frankl, the Viennese psychiatrist who survived several years of Nazi Concentration Camps, gives us these words, "A thought transfixed me: for the first time in my life I saw the truth as it is set into song by so many poets, proclaimed as the final wisdom by so many thinkers. The truth - that love is the ultimate and the highest goal to which man can aspire. Then I grasped the meaning of the greatest secret that human poetry and human thought and belief have to impart: the salvation of man is through love and in love."

Then why do we love so little? Why do we care so ineffectually? Is it not because we fail to tame the reptile within? But how can we tame the reptile if we are unaware of its presence? How can we become conquerors over self when we ascribe to devils the results of our misdeeds? How can we be victorious if we believe that in God lies our hope and salvation?

For thousands of years, the plaintive cries of innocent victims have pierced the skies. The only reply was a deafening silence. The slaughters continue to this day. The blood of the innocents deepens the Red River with every passing moment. And the heavens are silent. There is no balm in Gilead. The answers come from within us.

[John Brand is a Purple Heart, Combat Infantry veteran of World War II. He received his Juris Doctor degree at Northwestern University and a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Ministry at Southern Methodist University. He served as a Methodist minister for 19 years, was Vice President, Birkman & Associates, Industrial Psychologists, and concluded his career as Director, Organizational and Human Resources, Warren-King Enterprises, an independent oil and gas company. He is the author of "Shaking the Foundations."]

John Brand encourages your comments: jbrand@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org . Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org  are appreciated.

– PROPOSITION: Hardly anyone professing to be religious has any idea of the meaning of the word "religion."

OBSERVATION: The word "religion" is derived from the Latin prefix "re" meaning "back" and the verb "ligare" meaning "to bind." The essential meaning of religion is to bind together the totality of life. Religion, in its purest sense, is an all-embracing view of life. It is as much concerned about quantum mechanics as it is about the Bible. Religion understands that the entire cosmos is an intertwined whole of an implicate order. It understands, for instance, the concept of Chaos Theory that a butterfly's flickering wings in Burma might cause a tornado in Kansas.

On the other hand, religion is only concerned with its own dogmas, its own scriptures, its own holy men and women. Rather than seeking to find an integrative principle, religion seeks to force all events and all circumstances into its own preconceived doctrines. In this article the word Religion is spelled with a capital "R" when referring to its integrative meaning. When speaking of traditional, church oriented religion the lower letter "r" is used.

Integrative Religion embraces the dynamic reality of the world. Sectarian religion excludes all but its own self-understanding.

PROPOSITION: Most people use religion to confirm their own ideas and to solidify their own preconception.

OBSERVATION: During the last presidential election we learned that Jesus was Mr. Bush's philosopher of choice. Among Christians great diversities exist about the person and the teachings of Jesus. However, it would be difficult to find even one among a thousand or so churches, denominations, sects, assemblies, communions, or fellowships that would deny that Jesus was a friend of the underdog. He defended the poor, the disenfranchised, and the economically disadvantaged. Yet during the recent power crises in California, President Bush would not even lift the little finger of either hand to come to the aid of the beleaguered Californians. While, figuratively speaking, the energy brokers held a gun to the heads of our fellow citizens, the Enron crowd enriched themselves by about a billion dollars.

It would seem that among the myriads of laws, orders, ordinances, and regulations, our Jesus-oriented President and his fellow Christian disciple John Ashcroft could have found one little paragraph that would have enabled them to prevent this financial rape. But it seems that in spite of his continuous avowal of religion, the President listened to the philosophy of Kenneth Lay rather than the words of Jesus. "Truly I tell you, it will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to the through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19: 23,24) Maybe no one ever told Mr. Bush about the 23rd Chapter of Matthew.

Among many statements condemning the leading figures of his day for their hypocrisy, Jesus said, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mine, dill, and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith." What is more just, to allow Kenneth Lay to steal millions or to prevent him from robbing the little folks? Maybe for his next birthday gift, someone might send the President a copper bracelet with the letters WWJD? (What would Jesus do?) Not that it would matter a great deal. The President, like most other religious folks, always finds ways to bend religion to justify whatever he wants to justify.

PROPOSITION: On the surface of things, people are religious for two reasons.

OBSERVATION: Human beings are social creatures. We enjoy and even need to have relationships with other persons. Loneliness is a terrible state. Certainly, the church provides an environment where like-minded people congregate. Sunday School classes in particular satisfy human needs to interact and relate with others. It might interesting to find out whether the study of Religion is more important to members of a Sunday School class or whether the celebration of birthdays, social gathering, the annual Christmas party, the S.S. bowling league or other social events take precedence? I am willing to bet my proverbial dollar to your donut that the social aspects will weigh much more heavily than the quest for understanding the Religious nature of the world.

The second reason for being religious touches a more sensitive nerve. Most people fear death. After all, since we were knee-high to a grasshopper, we learned that "good" people go to heaven and "bad" people go to hell. While Dante's Inferno no longer puts the fear of God into people as it did centuries ago, nevertheless when push comes to shove, we want to have some insurance that will keep us out of the devil's domain.

So, where can we receive a visa in the passport of life that says, "Approved for Eternity, St. Pete?" To my knowledge the passport office of the State Department has no such stamp. The only place, we are told, where we can get that particular "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" is at the church around the corner.

There is enough neuroticism about death to make most people sign off on religion and make its institutions a viable enterprise. Because to most people death is such a fearful event, they are willing to accept irrational doctrines and fallacious beliefs to offset the dread of death. Let me share a personal experience that to my mind illustrates just how infantile many of us are about our own death.

Years ago, the undertaker in our small town remodeled his chapel. One day he called me and asked me if I were free to come to see him. I drove to the chapel and upon entering it he asked me, "John, do you see it?" "Well," I replied, "you certainly did a fine remodeling job." "No, no, do you see it?" "Well, to be honest I do not know what you mean?" He pointed to a light fixture above the place where the open casket with the body of the deceased would be positioned. All I saw was a fixture with two lamps. As I remember, one was pale blue and the other sort of purplish. He said, "John, when I fix these lights just right, the deceased will look life-like."

Whoa, Nellie! Even when death is reality, we seek to deny it. That is somewhat neurotic. And the church takes advantage of our fears. So we attend and support and buy into all sorts of dogmas and rituals seeking to still our minds and hearts in the face of the inevitable.

But there are far deeper reasons why religion continues to thrive.

PROPOSITION: The most deeply ingrained behavioral patterns in our brains find a sense of gratification through the practices of the church.

OBSERVATION: In my essays in YellowTimes.org, under the title "The Human Theater of the Absurd," I discuss the behavioral patterns imprinted in the basal ganglia, the reptilian brain. These brain cells have an evolutionary past dating back about 240,000,000 years. They dominate much of our behavior. There are four major areas of needs located in this very ancient part of the brain. Let me list them and discuss how the church satisfies these primordial needs.

1. The Territorial Imperative. Circuitry in the reptilian brain demands that we establish as well as defend our territory. Paul D. MacLean, M.D., claims that one's beliefs, value systems, philosophy, and political persuasion are territorial needs just as real as one's home, one's car, and other physical properties defining our personal space.

What can be more territorial than to believe that in the hereafter we have a place in eternity reserved for us? It is a territory beyond imagination because believers will be seated at God's Great Banquet. "God himself will be with them; he will wipe away every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away." (Revelation 21: 3,4) We all know the sorrows of life. We all have experienced rejection, disappointment, pain, and woe. What is more appealing than one's own personal territory where song and joy, laughter and bliss are the gifts bestowed upon us in perpetuity?

I suggest that the need for a piece of heaven to call our own, a celestial territory deeded to us forever and forever, is one of the strongest reasons, although not consciously understood, for the practice of religion. With the impending doom, heaven may be the only consolation for a vast number of people. The practice of religion will have a field day as personal security becomes less and less sure.

2. Hierarchy. As explained in my other essays, hierarchy is essential to the survival. Once the alpha of a herd, tribe, whatever, has been established, there must be a cessation of strife. Otherwise the group would be involved in a continuous struggle for the alpha position and propagation of the species could not occur. Acceptance of the dominant alpha establishes the hierarchy essential for the productive functioning of any organization. Someone must be in charge or chaos ensues.

Churches meet the hierarchical need in a profound manner. There is always a top official. It makes little difference whether he is called Pope or Bishop, Evangelist or Elder. The name does not matter, the office does. To hold our rightful place in an organization brings a sense of security. This is not to say that striving for the alpha position ever ceases. However, it takes place within a system where the Table of Organization is established and provides safety. Our reptilian brains demand it. The structure of the church satisfies it to a significant degree.

There is even a wonderful method to make the least members of the congregation feel that the lowest rank in the structure is significant. Are we not taught that the meek shall inherit the earth? So, while the bottom level in the organization may not have achieved greatness and may even have been exploited, its members can look forward to rich rewards. Safely established in the heavenly territory, those who lived in a humble state (read: those who have been exploited) will be exalted. It is a profound reason to be religious.

3. Ritual. This also is a very basic survival mechanism. In its simplest form it establishes the fact that a past practice that has proven to be safe. Ritual means stability, assurance, and gives a sense of protection. Our reptilian brain craves it and religion provides it. In the midst of a turbulent world where the unexpected is the order of the day, ritual provides a firm anchor.

It makes little difference if it is the ritual of a Roman Catholic High Mass or the simple proceedings at a Quaker Meeting. In both situations, there is order, there is precedent, and there is the assurance that the expected will take place. Again, we see that the practice of religion nurtures that most deeply seated need of the human brain.

4. Deceit. This survival mechanism permits an animal to approach its prey in a hidden manner. Were a Komodo dragon to huff and puff and loudly make its way through the brush, its likely prey would find a quick way to safety. The dragon screens its intent to kill its prey. If the dragon were not deceitful, it might starve to death.

Deceit is also deeply ingrained in human behavior. For a variety of reasons churches do not always tell the truth to their congregants. The most recent example, of course, is the effort to cover up the behavior of pedophile priests. The attempt to silence Galileo is probably the best-known example of a church's mendacity. One does wonder about the financial affairs of many TV evangelists. How much do they collect? How do they spend their money? Again I am offering the odds of my dollar against your donut. I bet that most TV preachers would not want their books to be audited and their finances disclosed.

Creationists go to great lengths to validate a biblical account of creation. They are quite deceitful in covering evidence suggesting a non-biblical account of story of the universe. They are not even honest enough to tell their believers that the book of Genesis contains two quite different creation stories. One is in Genesis 1:1 – 2:3; the other in Genesis 2:4 – 24. In the first story, man is the final act of creation whereas the second story begins with the creation of Adam. Not that this makes a gnat's worth of difference but it is rather amazing to what deceitful practices fundamentalists will go in the attempt to reconcile these two self-contradictory accounts.

Deceit and mendacity are accepted by most of us because it is part of everyone's neural circuitry. Recognizing that our own behavior has room for deceit, we are quite willing to accept it in others.

The reality of the physiology of our own brains attracts us to religion because it feeds into very ancient and substantive survival factors. Unless we understand this attraction for religion, it will be almost impossible for us to ever seek Religion. The practice of religion is basically an egocentric enterprise that does not give a hoot about Religion.

[John Brand is a Purple Heart, Combat Infantry veteran of World War II. He received his Juris Doctor degree at Northwestern University and a Master of Theology and a Doctor of Ministry at Southern Methodist University. He served as a Methodist minister for 19 years, was Vice President, Birkman & Associates, Industrial Psychologists, and concluded his career as Director, Organizational and Human Resources, Warren-King Enterprises, an independent oil and gas company. He is the author of "Shaking the Foundations."]

John Brand encourages your comments: jbrand@YellowTimes.org

YellowTimes.org encourages its material to be reproduced, reprinted, or broadcast provided that any such reproduction must identify the original source, http://www.YellowTimes.org. Internet web links to http://www.YellowTimes.org are appreciated

(YellowTimes.org) – Finally, after months of bad publicity, a group of Roman Catholic bishops promulgated guidelines for the church's handling of sexually abusive priests. What took so long? And what made the prelates propose a document that is still permissive of some degree of sexual misconduct? One would assume that God's representatives on earth would have no tolerance for any sort of sexual misconduct. Did not Jesus say, "It would be better for you if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble?" (Luke 17:2) Surely sexual abuse causes any victim to stumble, especially a child.

There must be a substantive reason why the Holy Father in Rome has not come down on abusive priests with rolls of thunder of righteous indignation. There must be some weighty cause why the Curia has not issued a decree withdrawing ordination credentials of these priests. After all, only a relatively small number of clergymen have been found guilty of abusing children. While there is a shortage of priests, the dismissal of these few would not seriously further aggravate the church's personnel problem.

Of course, there must be a core issue in this matter that has not been discussed by anyone! Neither ordained clergy nor secular media have said a single word about the underlying cause of the church's long silence. The church has danced all around the problem. It came as a revelation that for years a number of bishops made substantial monetary settlements to those who claimed they were abused.

It is estimated that various American dioceses have paid out about one billion dollars to injured parties in this matter. The Dallas diocese has paid about 31 million dollars to the victims of the former pedophilic priest Rudolph Kos. It is reported that the Santa Fe Archdiocese paid more than 50 million dollars settling some 40 cases in the 1990's. And so it goes. A few million here and a few million there and pretty soon you are talking about real money.

Something intense and profound must be behind the clandestine manner of the church's dealing with this matter for years. Certainly, the princes of the church are not lawbreakers. Certainly, the prelates of the Holy See are not criminals. One must assume that sexual misconduct by the clergy was not, is not, and will not be condoned. And yet for decades, worldwide, abuse of children by parish priests and even a bishop or two, has been swept under the rug. Violated children were given no help and every effort was made to conceal these heinous acts. The cover-up has been going on for decades. Obviously, the genesis for this denial must have deeper roots than the hierarchy or the media would have had the courage to bring into the open.

The current malfeasance has undercurrents similar to those of the Galileo affair. The Inquisition found the aged astronomer guilty in 1633. He was placed under house arrest, and ordered not to write another page of his defense of the Copernican theory. Rather remarkably, in 1625 Galileo began writing his "Dialogue on the Great World Systems." The book was completed in 1630.

In spite of some opposition, the volume was published in Florence in 1632. Some men of the cloth endorsed the book or else Galileo would not have been able to find anyone to license the publication of "Dialogue." If an author did not receive permission from ecclesiastical authorities, his work would not see the light of day. Some prelates were sympathetic to Galileo, but when the book came to the attention of Pope Urban VIII, he instituted inquisitorial proceedings against the aged astronomer.

Reasons for this action had a deeper provenance than scientific disagreements about the actual configuration of heavenly bodies. The reasons were theological! Prevailing thought held that the creation of earth was the crowning act of God. The blue planet held a very special place in the center of the universe. It and its inhabitants, all those who were Roman Catholic though not unbelievers, occupied front center stage in the divine drama. Not to position Planet Earth in the center of the entire scheme of things shook the foundations of belief. Galileo's claim called into question the truth of biblical revelation. If the Bible and/or the Patristic Fathers were not correct on this issue, what other matters could be questioned?

The Pope could not permit such heretical thoughts to be entertained. In the church's theology, inspiration is a direct act of God. Results of observation contradicting inspired