Featured

Birdability

Birdability

Recently I discovered a new organization; a new website—Birdability.  The organization is focused on disability inclusion in birding.  It may seem like a quirky corner of concern, but it was a reminder of our inability to segregate the impact of disability, or any characteristic of diversity, to only one or two specific areas of life. Most of my characteristics are visible: I’m white, female and dwarf.  I’m a birder. You can’t always tell that by looking. I learned the voices of birds as a child. My Pa Tom pointed out the distinct calls of our birds and I studied the variety available in the dusty fields around our little farm.  Accessibility wasn’t a problem because I just walked around and listened.

I don’t suppose I thought of myself as a birder until I was forty-ish.  I have noticed birds all my life.  Hawks sat on the overhead lines along my routes to and from Joplin beginning in college.  Driving cross-country in the summer, the red-winged black birds perched on fences just beyond the reach of the highway.  Touring a civil war battlefield, I found blue birds. I was struck by the curious cheerfulness pausing on a branch, more than a century after bloodshed continued to shape our national landscape.  Being a homeowner, however, brought bird feeders into my life.  I lured a variety of nuthatches, chickadees and juncos into community with the sparrows and blue jays and cardinals.  I bought finch seed and found gold finches in my yard. By May, the humming bird feeders were up. I found the Cornell bird site with audio and struck up a conversation with cat birds hidden in the twilight shadows along the back fence. Birding is a simple enough way to connect with nature, and it expands my awareness of the beauty lurking in bushes and branches all around us. I’ve found birding spots in parks, shoreline marshland and wherever I go, outside my door. 

I don’t need to focus much on my disability when birding is a solitary activity of my own design. But if I venture out, I have to plan.  Is the trail area accessible? Is there a driving route that could make exploring more manageable? Is there parking or are there places to rest along the trail. I am reminded of the ugly racial encounter in New York City’s Central Park when a white woman called the police on a Black man birding. Race and ethnicity don’t matter to the birds. I used to think there was a bias against younger women birding but it appears I’ve outgrown the “younger” tag.

Radical Wholeness stands for our wholeness wherever we are and whatever we are doing.  Whenever we find activities people are excluded from, we must become aware of the barriers we create or allow to remain which distance segments of the community from participating. We are called to be inclusive in even the most quirky or mundane of the activities of life.  Kudos to Birdability for filling a need and making one more corner of life more accessible.

https://www.birdability.org/

Featured

What is wrong with you?

What is wrong with you?

Early on, everyone with a disability must resolve how to answer this perennial question.  Whether your disability is easily visible and the question is almost a greeting or whether the question doesn’t arise until your disability is revealed, the question comes.  Sometimes there is a follow-up: Why can’t you….  If you’ve grown up with a disability, you’ve mastered some sort of answer by the time you are an adult.  If you’ve acquired a disability, the sad news is that in the midst of grieving whatever function you have lost, you also have to come to terms with answering this question.

As a child, I learned quickly that I was expected to answer this question by explaining my dwarfism was a lack of bone growth. As I got older, I added that God makes everyone different; different sizes, shapes and colors. Coaching children to answer puts two burdens on a child. First, by answering with information you do not challenge the “wrong” part of the question. You answer what is wrong with you. Repeatedly the child hears and absorbs “there is something wrong with me”.  Second, the expectation the child will answer with information imprints on the child that they are expected to share personal information with total strangers.  By virtue of their difference, they are not entitled to the same sense of privacy and personal space everyone else gets.  Honestly, I coached my children in the same kind of answers I always gave.  Today, I would teach them differently.

Nothing is wrong with me. Different is not wrong nor is it bad nor less than. If responding to a child, I would add “And your parents should explain that to you.” The task of teaching children about differences is not the duty of all the people around the child who are different than the child.  Especially if it is a child-to-child interaction, no child should have to defend their right to exist to a peer.  The idea that this applies equally to adult-to-adult interactions should not have to be explained but here it is. I don’t owe you an explanation or information. I will not leave the idea something is wrong with me unchallenged!

I often go to the story in John 9 as a metaphorical guide to Jesus’ response to disability. The story begins with the disciples questioning: Who sinned, the parents or the man, that caused him to be blind?  Definitely a judgement that something is wrong.  Jesus responds, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him.”  So nothing is wrong. Let’s think about the last portion of the response—so that God’s works might be revealed in him. So why are any of us here?  So that God’s works might be revealed in us.  Same deal for all of us. People with disabilities do not have some special directive nor are they excluded from purpose and value. Then the story is odd.  Jesus puts mud on the man’s eyes and tells him to wash it off.  For me, the mud represents all the judgments, limiting opinions, and disrespect heaped upon all of those judged different but especially those with disabilities.  Then Jesus tells the man to wash it off.  It is an action the man himself takes, inspired and guided by Spirit.  “Then he went and washed and came back able to see.”  Here is where I feel strongly about metaphorical meaning, not literal meaning.  What did he see?  The literal and even common metaphorical meaning is that his sensory eyesight was activated.  It was a physical healing.  Yet the passage says he was a beggar and no one could recognize him now.  He was a changed man.  Here is what I think he saw—he saw himself as a divine being, worthy and capable. He stood straighter, walked with confidence the familiar paths, he changed his appearance with a sense of self-esteem. The transformation of consciousness is a powerful healing that is possible for all of us. How many of us need restoration of our ability to see ourselves as worthy; as divine heirs of the kingdom?  How many of us never notice the mud placed upon our vision, layer after layer, day after day?  How many of us are willing to take action when divinely inspired?  Or do we wait for someone/something else to act upon us for healing?

During Lent we are encouraged to give up something.  Our Unity Lenten booklet lays out a plan to let go of the negative and take up the positive.  Let’s give up the mud! Let go of mud we heap upon one another and the mud that we accept when heaped upon us. There is nothing wrong with you; there is nothing wrong with others. If anyone asks what is wrong with you, do not affirm the idea by explaining what is wrong. Challenge the idea!  Deny it has power over you! There is nothing wrong with me.  We may be different but that does not make one of us wrong! You do not owe anyone a further explanation.  Let us take action to wash the mud away, thought by thought, and see ourselves for the brilliant expressions of Spirit each of us is.  We are here so that the works of God may be revealed in us. The Divine shines in every single, radically whole, one of us.  Shine on!  

Featured

7 Dwarfs, Munchkins and Fairy Tale Fallout

          With roles in Station Agent and Game of Thrones, Peter Dinklage has worked hard to establish himself as a serious actor.  Recently, he has used his voice and public platform to call out Disney productions for half-stepping diversity progress.  Apparently, the new Disney production of the age old “Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs” will take the white out of Snow White but leaves the 7 Dwarfs, and its accompanying damage, intact.  Maybe because Dinklage uses the F-bomb liberally in his comments, maybe because no one wants to hear or understand what he’s talking about, Dinklage is being dismissed as simply, “an angry little man”.  What is all this about?

          Fairy tales, for the most part, involve mythical things or powers that don’t really exist.  While extinct dinosaurs might resemble the imaginary dragons, you cannot find the elusive flitting fairies, gargoyles that leave their stony perch, vampires or giants bigger than trees.  The challenge with short-statured people in fairy tales (dwarfs, leprechauns, trolls and gnomes), is that short people do exist.  They are real human beings just like everyone else.  They are never portrayed in tales as heroic beings like everyone else.

          Many Unity ministers love to use The Wizard of Oz to examine metaphors and lift it up as a spiritual tale.  I do not.  What do you do about the Munchkins?  One of the primary tools of discrimination of people with disabilities is “infantasizing” them, or making them childlike. If you go to Munchkin.com you find a company making baby products.  This village in Oz is filled with one dimensional (height) people with cute little costumes and no real identity or characteristics.  One day I found myself in the grocery store, going up and down the aisles to gather my groceries.  A man sidled up to me and with a sneer said, “Look what we have here!  A Munchkin!”  I was very uncomfortable and moved away from him.  He located me in another aisle, “Are you gonna tell me where the wizard is?” The evil in his tone and demeanor was starting to freak me out.  I abstained from saying, “May a thousand flying monkeys come out your ass,” because I was a pastor and that was not a very pastoral thing to say.  Instead, I found my daughter and hurried out of the store.  I should have told the store manager.  The problem with portraying people with dwarfism in fairy tales is that a fair number of people cannot distinguish fairy tales from reality.  Dinklage, like most of us, did not grow up with people looking at us as potential romantic partners, as leaders of industry, as inventors, as creatives or people to respect. We were “the dwarf” in class, in town, in our work environments, often in our own families.  It is a minimization that few are interested in undoing.  Dinklage hoped he had the recognition to make a change. Sadly, I think he was wrong.

          Disney is in the business of fairy tales.  In recent years, they have begun to identify some of the damage done in the typical fairy tale.  For generations we have taught young women that they need a man (ideally a prince) to rescue them from danger (not that the men cause the danger, that is left to evil older women) and finding the right prince is the only real path to happily ever after.  Young men are taught fighting is the answer to any conflict, physical strength is the primary characteristic of success, and you also need to find a princess for happiness.  Newer stories are being told about women who fight (Mulaun, Maya and the Dragon), women who don’t get rescued (Tangled and Frozen), men can lack physical strength, be sensitive and prevail in peace (How to Train Your Dragon-not a Disney film, DreamWorks) and the absence of beauty as necessary (Shrek, also DreamWorks).  Still, we leave the dwarfs intact as not real people, even though we have real people in the roles.  Snow White in the forest with 7 little men is not in any danger because they aren’t real men, they are dwarfs. They have no capacity for violence, sexuality nor heroism.  Only one out of 7 seems to be very smart (Doc vs Sleepy, Happy, Grumpy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey).  Maintaining this one-dimensional portrayal of people with dwarfism is what Dinklage is calling out as the perpetuation of the damage done in fairy tales, while appearing to correct the bigotry of Snow White-ness.  

          Dinklage’s comments are being countered with wails of “So should we do away with all fairy tales?”  “Why does everything have to be politically correct?”  “Why can’t kids have stories anymore?”  So here is a thought.  Before we cast out damaging fairy tales, we need to first, acknowledge the nature and existence of the damage fairy tales have done; and second, we need to write new stories that counter the damage. What if it was The Princess and 7 Men in the Woods?  What if the men, maybe a mix of short and tall, had real strengths and weaknesses, and a devotion to protecting and caring for the princess?  What if they performed heroic acts to keep her safe?  What if it was a dwarf man who summoned the courage to kiss the poisoned girl they all had cared for and the princess awakens to a love born out of caring and courage—which might actually be the foundation for a happy marriage? I would suggest that we cast the princess as a woman of color and short stature but then observers could dismiss it as just a “dwarf tale” not really relevant to “real people” or in our value system, tall people. Just as even winning an Emmy has not been enough to eliminate references to Dinklage as a “dwarf actor” not merely a talented actor.  Putting that “dwarf” label in front of anything is like adding a demerit, or a negative sign.

           People with dwarfism are real people.  They are in pulpits and classrooms and boardrooms and hospitals.  They have hopes and dreams; they have marriage and divorce and children.  Like all real people, they have diseases and pain and yet, like all people, the measure of their worth is not their height nor their productivity.  We all have sacred value. Minimizing the value of anyone, based on any characteristic in this material and temporary manifestation in the world, is injustice.  We need to stop telling stories that perpetuate injustice.  We need to create new stories to lift up the characteristics that lead to true success—kindness, compassion, courage, wisdom.  We need to start NOW.

Featured

Reflections on Diversity: Awareness

October is a month of so many “Awareness” campaigns it can be overwhelming.  So many of them are directly relevant to my life and touch those I love.  It may be just an alignment of synchronicity: Dwarfism, Disability Employment, Infant Loss, SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome), Cerebral Palsy, Domestic Violence and more.   

In pondering this “awareness” work, I began to wonder what was the point?  What is it we hope to accomplish by providing all this information?  In all the years of posting, has it made a difference?  Is there ever enough information to shift the consciousness that is the source of painful experiences? 

We hope that by answering questions and providing information others will finally understand a perspective they may not have experienced.  In that understanding, we hope to find acceptance and support for the ongoing challenges of the particular awareness issue we address.  In acceptance we hope to gain equity and not only a place but a voice at a table of privilege we may not sit at now.  Perhaps we could all begin with knowing we cannot ever understand at a deep level the experiences that are not ours.  Not having the same experience as others does not stop us from treating others with empathy and compassion. Make the choice to be kind, it won’t matter how many questions go unanswered.  Maybe in deeper connections we actually will learn about one another in a more meaningful way.

In awareness work, I think we hope to make our difference a little less foreign.  We try to point towards common ground in our humanity and try to reduce the distancing that happens among us all.  We hope that answering questions will somehow quell the fear of difference.  Perhaps we could begin celebrating our uniqueness.  Difference does not mean “not the same as ____” where we value a characteristic and those without the characteristic are “different”.  We are designed to be unique, no two exactly the same.  We are all different.  Breathe.  Be unique and let others be uniquely who they are.

Peace within produces peace without.  We are really all afraid of being judged. Awareness campaigns arise out of awareness of the ways people judge us. As much as others judge us, we internalize all that propaganda and we judge ourselves with the same criteria we fear having applied to us.  It is the social order, economic hierarchy, biased “isms” we have all been taught.  We internalize it and judge ourselves. Love yourself. The funny part of much of the education in awareness campaigns is we attempt to teach that which we have had to learn ourselves about ourselves and those we love.  Everyone has something that is their “different”. We all know the rules about success and worth.  Toss them out.  Find success and worth within yourself and begin to be able to acknowledge it in others. 

Featured

Reflections on Diversity: A different kind of perfect

Today, we had planned a perfect day. Weather predictions were low humidity, a nice breeze and mild temperatures.  We would start the day with a lazy breakfast in a local café.  Then we would wander the sunflower fields outside Lawrence, take some pictures, and wander back home.  Maybe a stop at Sonic for a cherry limeade on the way home. Books to read on the patio at home.

Then came the note last night.  Bug sprayers and smoke detector checks today. Random folks invading our apartment.  We stayed home to protect the fur babies. There is no schedule and we waited.  The morning evaporated without a lazy café breakfast or start for the sunflower fields.  When the buggers finally came and went, we opted for a drive through lunch carried to the park with Raymond in tow as a precaution for the still unexpected smoke detector checker.  We had to thread our way out of the complex through the asphalt trucks that have abandoned the carefully mapped project as the paved lots slowly transition to some new black top bliss. The breeze at Shawnee Mission Park lake was delightful.  Geese honked and swam at a safe distance although Raymond noted their presence with barking. He sniffed and rambled and got bites of hamburger.  I came home to work on various diversity projects.  It was a different kind of perfect than we had planned.  Still perfect.

We have to stop expecting there is only one kind of perfect.  Charlie, my luecent feathered cardinal, is a different kind of perfect.  My father held me and declared me perfect and not in need of healing. I am a different kind of perfect than I’m sure he and my mom planned on but still, just perfect.  In our diversity work, we must come to see all the different kinds of perfect there are without wanting to change or heal any of them.   Perfect isn’t a peg shaped to fit in a hole, but a sea of infinite possibilities manifesting one by one, each uniquely shaped to fill its space in the world we are creating together. 

Featured

Reflections on diversity: blue jays

When I first had a backyard bird feeder, years ago, I found blue jays honestly quite annoying.  They were big birds and often spilled seed on the ground in their attempt to balance on the feeder.  They displaced the smaller birds. They were loud and their call strident.  The quiet chirps of chickadees and finches were lost in the cacophony of jays. 

The tiny cup of seeds I can now maintain on my apartment patio doesn’t accommodate as many birds.  Recently, I find the crew mainly softly dull, brown sparrows.  By sheer numbers, they bully my cardinals.  The chickadees and finches have been dissuaded from approaching the crowded cup.  I find that I am excited if a blue jay lands in the pine tree next to the car out front or I hear one down at the mail boxes. The bright blue color and strident call is a promise of something new on the patio.

I am learning to appreciate that embracing diversity means not only welcoming an array of colors but also voices.  We need the soft and harmonious and the loud and strident.  We learn from each. The Creator designed infinite variety for a reason and for me, did not distinguish one superior to the other. Whether race or ability or gender identity or sexual orientation: the beauty of diversity is all our differences, not just the differences we like the best or are most comfortable with.   

Image description: a bright blue bird on a yellowish branch. A dark eye stands out against white feathers and a tuft of blue feathers tops the head. Black and white markings appear on tail and wing feathers.

Featured

Reflections on diversity: Curiosity

August 31, 2001, I left my employment in the corporate world on a journey to see where putting my spirituality first led me. After a couple weeks, we had experienced 9-11 and everyone was curious about what I was doing. Adjusting to the abrupt end to a frantic pace of life, I sat in my backyard, noticing I was breathing in a way I was not accustomed to. Without the stressful holding my breath during anxious decisions, I was eating lunch! I began writing “Reflections from the backyard” and wrote more or less at least monthly for the next 10 years. Since I am without the weekly writing of sermons and newsletters, I think I will use the Radical Wholeness blog for a new series of reflections on diversity. Nature seems to be my inspiration.

Charlie is the cardinal who comes to my little cup of bird seed on the apartment patio.  We are not really allowed bird feeders at the apartments due to the mess.  I felt lost without that connection to nature, so I have devised a little plastic cup of seed nestled down in the cup holder of a porch chair.  I keep the mess swept up and generally have a few birds who find the seed.  Charlie and his mate Citrine (because she’s a fairly yellow female) are regulars.  They had a baby, Little Belle, who came for a while this spring.  You might wonder how I can be so certain it is the same cardinal coming to the feeder. Charlie has patches of white feathers at the tops of his legs.  I am pretty sure it’s him when he perches on the cup of seed.  At first, I guessed the white feathers were a remnant of a healed injury or maybe just a sign of aging.  Eventually I got curious enough to do a search for “white feathers on cardinals”.  I mean I couldn’t ask Charlie what was the deal with his white feathers could I?  Turns out the feathers are the product of “leucism”.  Not a true albino condition, Leucism generates feathers lacking the natural color for the bird and it affects more than just cardinals.  If you’ve seen crows with patches of white feathers on their wings, and I have, it’s leucism.

My process with Charlie made me reflect on curiosity about differences.  I couldn’t ask Charlie about his feathers but my whole life I’ve been expected to respond to personal questions from complete strangers.  I’ve been expected to educate others, even my doctors, about dwarfism. Every October I post thoughts during “Dwarfism Awareness Month”. As I listen to some of the discussions about dismantling racism and other “isms”, I understand the lament from marginalized people that it is exhausting to keep responding to the questions of others. And I realize sometimes I am the “other”. So here is a suggestion:  if you are curious about a difference (and I hope you are), do some research.  There is a world of information available these days from books to podcasts to movies and specials to online articles.  Stop expecting other people to educate you; make themselves vulnerable for your research; and putting the burden on those already carrying a burden. This is NOT a criticism of curiosity!  Just an invitation to take that curiosity on as your own adventure, not the responsibility of someone else to carry you through the information aisles. 

Image description: red northern cardinal perched on a black iron rod, next to a blue chair with snow on it and a plastic cup seen over the top edge of the cup holder in the chair. The cardinal has white feathers around its belly and top of its legs. White railing and green bush in the background.

Featured

Will healing erase our differences?

I encourage you to keep reading because this may not be the blog you think it is.

Let’s begin with the premise that we are spiritual beings having a human experience.  Made in the image and likeness of Divine Beingness, without exception, each of us can access a perspective that sees a like being in each other.  By looking beyond our human vehicle to the essence of each of us, there we are, whole and one in spirit. The second part of our premise brings us back to our humanity and that human experience.  If our sacred beingness arises from a Divine Source, our human expression seems to arise, to some extent, from our genes.  Those DNA sequences determine eye color and hair, gender expression and a host of other characteristics.

In 1990 the human science community undertook an international project to map the entire sequence of human genes.  What showed up where?  I recall there was a fair amount of discussion of the ethics of what would happen to the information if we knew the genetics of each person. The project was completed in 2006. This year the Nobel prize in Chemistry goes to two women (a first), Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Douda for their CRISPR technology.  Simply put, CRISPR is a way to edit and alter genes.  The technology is being used in several trials to “fix” broken genes that cause lethal conditions in humans, such as sickle cell disease and SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy). I’ll put a link to an article at the end if you’d like more scientific information. 

If healing is a return to wholeness and we’ve discovered a way to fix broken genes and make them whole, what could be the problem?  How could anyone be against healing?  Let me be clear, Radical Wholeness is not against healing.  From Buddhists to Christians to Pagans, most of us would like to eliminate pain and suffering.  Even if you consider it a part of our human experience, it is the part we would most like to skip. One of the most frequent healing desires is to reduce or eliminate pain and suffering. Healing keeps bringing us back to what does wholeness look like?

No one tends to think wholeness looks like genetic disability unless you are a person who has lived into a disability identity.  And not everyone with a genetic disability adopts a positive disability identity.  Many people spend their whole lives wishing to be something different; something without the inconvenience and limitation of their disability; something without the physical, psychological and emotional pain; something with more ability and more social acceptance.  So, what do we do with the emerging technology to allow these people to heal and return to their vision of wholeness?  Who decides what is whole and when is the decision made and who decides how to use the technology?  These ethical issues not being talked about put us on the slippery slope of a concept that is not new but takes on new life in this brave new world: Eugenics. 

Eugenics was popular in the United States in the 1900’s.  If you aren’t familiar with the word, here is an online definition: “the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable. Developed largely by Sir Francis Galton as a method of improving the human race, eugenics was increasingly discredited as unscientific and racially biased during the 20th century, especially after the adoption of its doctrines by the Nazis in order to justify their treatment of Jews, disabled people, and other minority groups.” Now the Nazis got in trouble because their manipulation of reproduction was to simply eliminate people.  In the United States, the more benign version of eugenics was to involuntarily sterilize individuals with undesirable characteristics. In 1927, the Supreme Court sanctioned involuntary sterilization with a majority decision (written by Oliver Wendell Holmes) in Buck vs Bell that reads in part, “It is better for the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Lest you think this is ancient history, we might note that the last legally forced sterilization occurred in 1981 in Oregon.  Enforcement became state by state with a cascade of repeals in more recent years but the Supreme Court decision has never been overtly overturned. Let that sink in.

Who makes the decisions in Eugenics?  It is NOT the individual!  It is parents, medical people and social bias who establish who is fit to reproduce.  So let’s apply this movement to the CRISPR technology.  Many genetic conditions have established patterns of inheritance going forward but first appear in families through an unpredictable occurrence of “spontaneous mutation” of the gene.  Parents want the best for their children so most of the decisions will fall to individuals who have no experience of the difference being eliminated or genetically engineered out.  In communities with a disability identity, like the deaf or dwarf community, we could also feasibly see disabled parents denied the ability to refuse genetic engineering to heal their child into the wholeness viewed by others.  The views of disabled parents are often discounted or ignored. Since disability is so obviously not wholeness in society’s general view, let’s consider LGBTQ. Let’s assume science discovers genetic components to gender identity and sexual orientation, which can then be genetically engineered away. Would a parent choose to have their child LGBTQ or would they choose to heal the child?  Of course, we still have the issue of race.  Nazis gave Eugenics a bad name with their extreme behavior yet one of the issues facing our nation today remains the belief (by maybe more than we estimate) in a master race.  What if a single master race was a physical possibility?  Would we eliminate the differences in our human expression if we could?  Would that really be healing? 

This seems like science fiction.  I am guessing most of you think I have just gone too far. I really intend this to be a cautionary note to generate conversation.  My concern is being too far down the slippery slope before we discern the need to make a course correction that is then out of reach.

What are the consequences if we shift our focus in the disability community from accommodation and acceptance to elimination of genetic conditions? With increasing economic disparity, who has access to the technology and what happens to those who do not have access?   What happens to those with acquired or non-genetic disabilities? Can we trust our social and governmental structures to be able to engage in ethical discussions and decision making?  Our history is not great on that.  Look at discussions and criteria right now being used in algorithms for distribution of limited ventilators if the need arises.  Look at the somewhat cavalier attitude from our nation’s leader about the ravages of COVID, based on the highest incidence being elderly, minorities and those with disabilities. Many continue to consider these acceptable losses in the interest of the economy. 

I know this is long and I appreciate those who read to the end.  For me, spirituality is not useful if it is not applied to daily living.  With power comes responsibility.  I am challenged to contemplate both my access to a spiritual wholeness and how to use that access for the highest and best.  If I see myself as part of a greater whole, what is the highest for our wholeness?  If humanity was designed for diversity, as indicated by our genetics, is it our destiny to eliminate that diversity, substituting human will for divine design? Or was diversity manifesting a human flaw and not divine design? Is Oneness sameness?  What exactly is healing and what does spiritual wholeness look like in human expression? I invite you to examine your own beliefs and stay aware of where humanity is heading.

Resources: Nobel Prize     https://www.quantamagazine.org/2020-nobel-prize-in-chemistry-awarded-for-crispr-to-charpentier-and-doudna-20201007/

Image description: image of blue microscopic dna strands on black background