You got me interested so here are some more thoughts.

Regarding spirituality, my problem has long been to reconcile the notion of spirituality with the Enlightenment view of the autonomous individual and the Puritan and Calvinist religious influence in America. Personally, I find it hard to accept that spirituality has found a home here. To be sure, we have a strong religious tradition in this country, but such tradition doesn’t ipso facto imply spirituality, at least as I know it. We also have a strong moral tradition but, once again, this does not necessarily imply spirituality.

Glance at social science statistics. They denote tragically severed relations in every aspect of American life — even in the family and the Church. Broken relations do not imply spirituality. We even “bowl alone,” as Robert Putnam has commented.

You say in Part I that spirituality has been internalized and then cite Schneider’s anthropological view and her attempts to present a holistic notion of spirituality. All well and good. But then I have to ask: what is the foundation which grounds all these diverse elements? Is the foundation itself spiritual? Do feeling and beliefs, bodily and psychological functions, social, and political dynamics, or the rise of civic religions and inter-demoninational accommodations — do they denote spirituality? Potentially, they can. But do they? Are these phenomenon deeply rooted in a spiritual density, much the same way as effect is rooted in a cause?

When I speak of causality here, I’m not referring to social science correlations which often mask as causes. No, I’m speaking of real causes producing real effects. So I will ask again: Are these phenomenon cited by Schneider merely manifestations of the atomistic individual or a nominalistic and voluntaristic religious, i.e., moral, tradition? Or do they flow directly from a spiritual ground, as an effect would flow from a cause.

Luther has said: “Every man is a priest and a prophet.” Does this statement denote spirituality? Could it ever? To me, this phrase sounds like it emanates from the mouth of one committed to the autonomous individual! Certainly, the German Princes thought so, given the upheaval they had to contend with once his ideas were unleashed.

Just as then, can it be that the notion of faith in most religious circles today has collapsed into mere belief, where every man is a priest and a prophet, or where strong men are priests and prophets and everyone else is a follower? Has Faith collapsed into a sociological/political construct? Where is the spirituality and the transcendence that Faith would almost certainly radiate?

What I find most evident in America is not spirituality but spiritual alienation. But isn’t spiritual alienation the absence of spirituality? Can it be that what some think is spirituality is actually fear? Can it be that fear has the capacity to appear under the guise of spirituality?

So, in a nutshell, that is my problem with the notion of spirituality in America. Perhaps you could lead me out of this cul-de-sac.

But going further, what if you were to look at your work and conclude that America, lacking a spiritual tradition, opted instead to create a strong moral tradition. How would your narrative read then? The same concepts would apply but the material to which they are applied would be different.

To me, America is primarily a moral society. Now, the question that comes to mind is this: “Can America set about to introduce spirituality into its moralistic culture and living dynamics?

In other words, can a highly moral society (moral almost to the point of being brittle) transcend itself and rise to a higher level of consciousness — an ontological consciousness predicated on Love? Can America enrich and extend its “suffering memory” to include spiritual realities that are transcendent? Can we give a greater dimension and concreteness to the notions of human solidarity, individual freedom, and human solidarity? Can we see in other’s “suffering” a “crying out for love?” Can we respond with Gratitude? Can we establish Gift and Gratitude as a principle form of human exchange?

Poised this way, these questions would be a call to action.

The alternative seems clear: a continuation of a moral hedonism whose impact poisons our lives and leads to boredom, violence, and human wreckage.

These are some things that come to mind. You should continue to pursue these explorations. They will lead you far. Personally, I find it all very exciting.

First of all, whoever the president is, the American conversation has always sought to separate the religious from the political. (That’s a broad statement, but stick with me.) A president is seen as the leader of government, but not always a national leader, national in the sense that would include culture and spirituality. Even a president with 100% support is looked upon warily.

And that’s under normal circumstances. In this particular period, anything spiritual could have been seen as a merging of Western military and religion: the Crusade that inspires Muslim dread and violence. Anything too reflective could have been seen as weakness, which also had the potential of encouraging more violence. So any speeches reflected tightrope-walking discipline, rather than expression of the American soul.

I very much like what you are doing here. The insights and sentiments you touch upon reflect my own views. I urge you to continue to develop this perspective as you proceed in your studies and beyond.

I especially like your emphasis on solidarity. If the notion of solidarity could ever become an operative principle in schools of international politics, there would be, over time, a radical change in the conduct of American foreign policy. I have no doubt about that whatsoever.

Images of human solidarity are already present in the UN Declaration of Human Rights and, it is my contention that this document is a codification of very powerful strains in American political culture. We need to reinforce these very fragile but essential elements in our culture.

Sadly, praxis is another matter. We declare and act otherwise.

I’ve always looked upon America as a “struggle for the future of dignity, freedom, and solidarity.” Following 9/11, I saw the administration act to usurp this struggle for its own ideological vision of what America represents. There were others, like myself, who were astonished at the direction we took. But in the milieu of fear, very little could be done or even said.

Looking forward, people like you — committed as you are — can put the folly that was advanced in response to 9/11 in proper light. You begin to do that in your post. In this effort, history will not be your guide, but it will be your resource. Use Metz. Use others like him. Put meat on the bones! People need to know the extent of our misadventure. Otherwise we will have lost our way for goods and madness will have won.

America today is a nation without purpose. At least during the Cold War we had a foe and that guided us in countless ways.

But what’s striking about the Cold War is how it ended. When I was at USIA, I used to comment that much of our success would in later years be attributed to the fact that we lacked access to captive nations. We could not get in there like we did in Iraq and arrange the pieces like we wanted. We had to stand back and use the instruments we had, like the Voice of America, Worldnet TV, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty. (I posted a piece on Michael Jackson upon his death which refers to that work.)

The upshot is that America had to rely on inspiration to facilitate the changes that took place throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. We could not use force as a means to control behavior. So it was those on the ground — young freedom-loving individuals like yourself — who made the difference. What USIA provided was a web of solidarity through international broadcasting. Yet it was the people themselves — millions of them — who made the many practical decisions to accomplish what they did.

The images of ordinary citizens standing on top of the tanks of a Soviet tank army in Moscow — giving soldiers flowers, food, and drink — will never fade from my memory. And yes, emblazoned on a wall in Moscow were the words: “Thank you, VOA!”

There is room for hope. But like all hope, there is much need for resolute people and a great struggle. It is our task to insure that authoritarian forces throughout America are not successful in their effort to usurp control over the vast resources of this nation. Were they to do so the world would sink into the abyss of a new dark age, “made more sinister and more protracted by the lights of perverted science.”

Finally, one suggestion. It might be helpful to articulate what is meant by spirituality. To me, spirituality has to do with the quality of relations. I’m not sure spirituality is a commodity in America. I think it is more accurate to refer to us as a “moral” people rather than a “spiritual” people. We are more inclined to “control” behavior rather than seek to improve lives from within. We don’t really take to spiritual qualities like love, compassion, understanding, and mercy without demands. We appreciate correlations more than causality and thus we don’t realize that behavior proceeds from inner causes (alienation, aloneness, etc.) not extrinsic correlations. In other words, we are caught up in exteriority.

Just some thoughts.