Individual values of the 21st century need to espouse acceptance of other values rather than pushing a monolithic monopoly of righteousness in terms of religious, political or ethical views.

However, this does not mean I espouse ethical relativism; I will not accept cultural sensibilities as an excuse and a veil to cover up injustices to human dignity and welfare.

Instead, I am advocating reflection and understanding of different human contexts and perceptions as opposed to assuming one path, tradition or belief of universal righteousness.

At the same time, we are concerned with the creation of values without taking into account the impact these values have on our surrounding environment. Usually, values that are accepted encompass such attributes as socio-economic status and physical attributes.

I believe values need to move beyond the superficial and become symbiotic between living things.

We have craved the unity of values; however, we keep on addressing the superficial.

Today’s politics contain values; however, between the rhetoric and the five-second sound bites of opposing sides, the semantics of values have glossed over the complexities of the nation’s problems. I feel values need to demand reflection and acknowledge the complexity of human relations and needs.

The perennial drive of bipartisanship and the building of common ground between opposing sides are fuzzy words that we look to for simple solutions, instead of a deeper reconciliation that lets us sit around a common table.

I think values need to create mechanisms for opposing sides to reach across the divide with the hand of human solidarity.

Instead, the difference of values have led to the belittlement and demonizing of the believer of a particular value. We live complacently in the environment of confrontation between values, while the pent-up aggression between the opposing factions builds in our society.

Creating the mechanisms for non-violent crisis and conflict might go a long way toward creating the channels of mediation and communication to bridge the rifts of different values.

Heading in this direction will be necessary so that we can reflect upon where we are going as a nation, and if the America we are creating moves all of us ahead together. I believe friction between humans, confrontation, and conflicts are natural realities of the human experience; however, I believe that values need to also create the means to resolve human differences non-violently.

Spurious rhetoric found in the ideology and values espoused in five second sound bites are fruitless when we need to create values that call for more claim on our common destiny and less blame on the shortcomings of others.

My view is that our common destiny lies in each other’s hands as the fate of all nations is dependent on all their inhabitants. I deeply believe values need to forge a common destiny.

Values need to engage us in a collective barn-building that allows us to understand our individual differences and life experiences.

Dialogue cannot be composed on the template of the views of the majority. A national dialogue, in my mind, needs to be accepting and malleable to the dynamic diversity of values and lifestyles of all Americans.

This does not mean in the aftermath of Sept. 11 that we have to create a common identity in an uncertain world. It’s an opportunity to create mechanisms to address and resolve the squabbles amongst our human family.

Our common future and values can not be promoted through the views of the majority.

America the beautiful should not be discerned by the simple eyes of the many, but by a beautiful mosaic of perspectives, beliefs, colors, orientations, and policies that advance us all.