“The Charter for Compassion is a summons to action, not just a feel-good thing,” British scholar Karen Armstrong stated at a press conference on November 12, 2009.

The charter she was referring to is a short but powerful 312-word document crafted by people from all nationalities, beliefs, and backgrounds with the intent to bring compassion back into the heart of society.{loadposition bottom}

A year and a half earlier, Armstrong, author of A History of God and Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact on Today’s World and The Case for God, had won the TED* prize. She used her acceptance speech to launch the notion of a charter for compassion and to elicit help to create it.

Her ideal is for “compassion” to become “a key word in public and private discourse, making it clear that any ideology that breeds hatred or contempt ~ be it religious or secular ~ has failed the test of our time,” the charter states.

To get things moving, Armstrong convened a ‘Council of Conscience,’ composed of religious scholars and leaders. This group initially drew mostly from representatives of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Later the council was expanded to represent other religions and leading figures from humanitarian groups, and is now called the Global Compassion Council.

The council constructed a web site with some preliminary ideas for the charter and invited people from around the world to leave comments on what the final charter should include. The council received thousands of comments that it used in the final draft.

Since the official release of the charter, the web site now asks individuals and organizations to register and then to affirm the charter. In less than a month, 30,000 affirmations were registered. Affirmers of the charter come from all over the world; the web site supports seven different languages.

Among the luminaries that affirmed the Charter for Compassion are Archbishop Desmond Tutu; HH the Dalai Lama; Queen Noor of Jordan; Sheikh Ali Gomaa, Grand Mufti of Egypt; Candido Mendes, Brazilian peace scholar; Nobel Peace Prize winner Jody Williams; Deepak Chopra; Sakyong Mipham Rinpoche, actor Meg Ryan, South African singer Vusi Mahlasela; and Salman Ahmad, Pakistani singer, actor, and AIDS activist.

The Charter for Compassion web site also invites other organizations to join as “partners.” These partners promise to support the charter and link to it on their web sites (as does CompassionatePolitics.org), and the charter site lists their names. Already 123 organizational partners from all over the world have been approved.

The charter’s ability to inspire many disparate groups and individuals so quickly may be that it emphasizes what we all have in common-the Golden Rule: “The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves…[I]n our divided world, compassion can build common ground.”

When first read, the Charter for Compassion can seem like simply one long definition of compassion. But with careful reading, 15 distinct statements emerge as imperatives for a life lived with compassion.

At the heart of the Charter for Compassions stands the Golden Rule, which may be why it has inspired so many disparate groups and individuals so quickly. “The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves…[I]n our divided world, compassion can build common ground.”

Alleviating suffering is the principal goal of compassion. That priority comes through loud and clear in this sentence: “Work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures.” This obligation acknowledges that generosity with one’s time and effort is an essential part of compassion.

Empathy generally is considered a core component of compassion. Two requirements in the Charter explicitly call for empathic action: First, “Refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain;” and second, “Cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings, even those regarded as enemies.” The latter requirement is a call to forgive one’s enemies and those doing harm.

The word “selflessness” does not appear in the charter, but the concept is a major component of compassion. In the charter, it is emphasized by two words: “Transcend selfishness.” The same idea is captured in the imperative to: “Dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put another there.”

The following principle from the Charter for Compassion makes humanitarianism a major component of compassionate action: “Honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being. Treat everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.” Notice that justice, equity, and respect were given great prominence. While “responsibility” was not mentioned, most of the imperatives seem to depend upon social responsibility as the rationale underlying the charter.

Nonviolence and peacefulness. At least two of the imperatives suggest that intentional violence is totally unacceptable. This is how they are stated in the Charter for Compassion. “Avoid acting or speaking violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest…Return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred, or disdain is illegitimate.”

Responsibility and human rights. The following imperative: “Avoid exploiting or denying basic rights to anybody,” explicitly addresses human rights. While not explicit, social responsibility seems to provide the ethical foundation for this imperative to honor human rights.

Kindness. One of the charter’s imperatives addresses the implications of kindness: “Avoid inciting hatred by denigrating others.” Again, the implicit rationale for kindness seems to be social responsibility.

Wisdom is sometimes considered a component of compassion because it is integral to making compassion-related decisions. The following two imperatives support that notion: “Ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions, and cultures,” and “Encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity.”

Call to Action. Underlying the final three imperatives appears to be a plea for treating compassion as a way of life. The following requirement: “Acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately,” implies that compassion is a matter of morality and integrity. The next imperative in this category explicitly argues for making compassion more central in both morality and religion: “Restore compassion to the center of morality and religion.” Finally, compassion is offered as human activity that would humanize and otherwise improve relationships across the globe: “Make compassion a clear, luminous, and dynamic force in our polarized world.”

These imperatives commit those who seek to be compassionate to a long list of actions including not only the Golden Rule, but pacts to alleviate suffering, cultivate empathy, transcend selfishness, become a humanitarian, adopt a personal policy of non-violence, shoulder responsibility, pursue kindness rather than denigrating others, develop wisdom to guide all decisions, and finally, to help make compassion a powerful force around the world.

We probably will never know what aspects of compassion were discussed but left out. I would have liked to have seen more emphasis on generosity, responsibility, forgiveness, integrity, and self-compassion.

Generosity, responsibility, and forgiveness are hidden between the lines of the charter’s text, but for those of us living in a culture of self-centered consumption, they are easy to ignore. Without integrity, it is impossible stay on the path of authentic compassion. And the compassion for others cannot last long without self-compassion.

While these are important aspects of compassionate living, we should assume that their omission is mostly a consequence of the desire to reach consensus and keep the charter brief. Most importantly, the Charter for Compassion gives prominence to a call to action for people around the world. It is ambitious, but deserves all the support that we can give.

You may have heard of the tragic Columbine High School massacre. Out of that tragedy has come inspiration for a charitable project called Rachel’s Challenge.  The organization aims to creating safe, connected school environments where kindness and learning are maximized. Based on the life and writing of Rachel Scott, the first victim of the Columbine tragedy in 1999, Rachel’s Challenge provides a continual improvement process for schools. They help organize school events all over the United States. So far over 21 million people have been active in these events and thousands have benefited by either giving or receiving acts of compassion or kindness.

The organization bases their ideas directly off of Rachel’s diary in which she argues for helping students accept a life that promotes chains of acts of kindness and compassion.  Rachel believed it all starts with one person, that the one act of kindness can create a ripple effect.  Here is a 4 minute video of her story

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIYMaUDfWSI&feature=related

9/11 was a historic human tragedy, but we extend the tragedy by using it as an excuse for ongoing anger. The stories of the Quran-burning threat from Florida and the pressure to move an Islamic center away from Ground Zero spread around the world like fire this past week. No doubt they will continue for at least a few more days. Or they might start World War III.

“How have American’s brought this shame upon themselves?” This is what Karen Armstrong, chief architect of the Charter for Compassion, asked in an article “9/11 and Compassion.” She asks, how have Christens forgotten that “Jesus taught his followers to love those they regard as enemies, to respond to evil with good, and to turn the other cheek when attacked, and who died forgiving his executioners”? These are core Christian values. They also are the core spirit of compassion.

In pondering these questions, it would be easy to be accusatory and respond with anger at the hypocrisy . But anger does not irradicate hypocrisy; it only fuels it.

Isntead, Karen Armstrong suggests aligning with groups that plan to celebrate 9/11 in a spirit of harmony and forgiveness. Or get your friends to contribute to flood relief in Pakistan. Do anything but spread more intolerance and misunderstanding.

Throughout recorded history, men have made the laws, even in democratic societies where both men and women can vote. True, there are a dozen or so women heads of state, and there is a society called the Council of Women World Leaders with 36 members, but try to think of a single democracy where the House of Representatives or Parliament has a majority of women.

Can’t think of one? That’s because there aren’t any. Sweden, probably the most egalitarian society in the world, has only 47 percent women in Parliament. Most of the remaining industrialized countries have 20 percent or fewer women in such positions of power.

Politics is viewed as a masculine pursuit not just because of its off-kilter gender ratio, but because it’s driven by society’s views on what makes a good leader. We believe that toughness, a perceived male trait, is a political essential. And we believe that caring, a perceived female trait, is a hazard. Politics is for men; they have what it takes. Women, with their “soft” feminine side, might buckle under pressure.

Study after study has shown that women do place greater value on caring than do men. The problem is that caring implies weakness.

Nell Painter, noted Professor Emeritus of African American Studies at Princeton University, commented recently on CNN that, “American foreign policy so often is discussed by journalists in terms of assumed masculinity. They talk about who shames whom and who’s going to take the fall for being wimpy.” These subtle media messages reinforce?masculine images within politics.

In May 2009, a firestorm broke out in American politics when President Obama suggested that judging should be based on empathy. His Supreme Court Justice nominee at the time, Sonia Sotomayor, repudiated his statement. That one small word packed a disproportionate punch and was met with derision, at best, by many in politics and the media.

A politics that demands that its leaders talk tough and hold the line isn’t bad in itself. It only becomes a problem when it neglects to also embrace the subtle, simple, and perhaps more powerful actions of careful listening and empathizing. This dual embrace is essential to strong and compassionate leadership. Without strength, a society risks being overrun or conquered. Without compassion, a society cannot flourish.

How can we begin to view strength, compassion, decisiveness, and empathy as leadership values, and not masculine or feminine characteristics? And how can we pass that view on to subsequent generations?

As with most things, change has to start at home, as parents eschew gender stereotypes and transmit their moral values to their young children. The responsibility, to some extent, then shifts to education where the notion of strength and compassion as human qualities can be reinforced through “character education.”

To continue to see “compassionate politics” as an oxymoron is to sentence the world to more of the same violence, destruction, disease, and dictatorship it has suffered for thousands of years. How much better to see those two words as the formula for a new world order.

When the retreat center I co-founded, the Insight Meditation Society, first opened, someone created a mock brochure describing a retreat there, with sayings like, “Come to IMS and have all the tea you could ever drink.” It also featured a wonderful made up motto for us: “It is better to do nothing than to waste your time.” I loved that motto, and thought it exemplified a lot about how meditation serves to help us unplug.

Although that motto never made it into our official presentation, it actually was an accurate description of insight meditation, or mindfulness meditation. Basically, we enter into mindfulness practice so that we can learn how to do nothing and not waste our time, because wasting our time is wasting our lives.

We come to meditation to learn how not to act out the habitual tendencies we generally live by, those actions that create suffering for ourselves and others, and get us into so much trouble. Doing nothing does not mean going to sleep, but it does mean resting — resting the mind by being present to whatever is happening in the moment, without adding on the effort of attempting to control it. Doing nothing means unplugging from the compulsion to always keep ourselves busy, the habit of shielding ourselves from certain feelings, the tension of trying to manipulate our experience before we even fully acknowledge what that experience is.

In our usual mind state, we are continually activating the process that in Buddhist terminology is known as “bhava,” which literally means “becoming.” In this space of becoming, we are subtly leaning forward into the future, trying to have security based on feeling that we can hold on, we can try to keep things from changing. We are continually out of balance in this state — in meditation we might notice that we even try to feel the next breath while the present one is still happening.

When we speak about letting go, or unplugging, or renouncing, we are talking about dropping the burden of becoming and just returning our awareness to the natural center of our being, returning to a state of natural peace. The movement that is often helpful in meditation is to come back, to relax, to let go of leaning forward, to let go of grasping. We can relax even from the anticipation of our next breath. We settle back, return to the present, and return to ourselves. This is what we mean by doing nothing, or unplugging.

Meditation is not the construction of something foreign, it is not an effort to attain and then hold on to a particular experience. We may have a secret desire that through meditation we will accumulate a stockpile of magical experiences, or at least a mystical trophy or two, and then we will be able to proudly display them for others to see. We may feel that we will increase our value as human beings by a process of spiritual acquisition, gaining more goodness and purity, acquiring enlightenment and understanding with a certain sense of ownership and possessiveness: “my enlightenment,” and “my clear understanding.” Our typical consumer-culture mind wants to view enlightenment as performance art or as social cachet: “People will surely notice that I’ve been transformed. That will be awfully impressive.”

Letting go of this burdensome desire for acquisition and performance, we can just let the mind rest in ease as we learn to unplug. As Tibetan lama Nyoshul Khen Rinpoche put it, “Rest in natural great peace, this exhausted mind.” Then, rather than wasting our time, our learning to practice doing nothing can lead us into the deep and renewing rest of truly living.

Bush family presidential advisor and author Doug Wead is credited with coining the phrase “compassionate conservatism” in his 1977 book, The Compassionate Touch. Journalism professor Marvin Olasky popularized it in Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America, published in 2000 with an introduction by President George W. Bush.

President Bush made compassionate conservatism a household term during his 2000 presidential campaign. The night before its official launch, he stated, “I am a fiscal conservative and a family conservative.

And I am a compassionate conservative, because I know my philosophy is optimistic and full of hope for every American.”

After he was elected president, he had this philosophy displayed on the official White House archives web site. During the first few years of his presidency, President Bush often referred to compassionate conservatism in his public speaking. Increasingly he called the United States a “strong and compassionate nation.” His visibility gave him the status of de facto leader of the compassionate conservatism movement.

President Bush’s commitment to compassionate conservatism seemed genuine as he personally increased funding of the fight against HIV/AIDS in Africa and he greatly boosted support for faith-based charitable organizations (FBOs).

But to many, President Bush’s claims of compassion sounded hollow and hypocritical. American policy during his administration neglected global warming, growing domestic economic inequality, and the four million refugees produced by the United States-initiated Iraq war.

Many saw the slow and inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina as a lack of compassion on President Bush’s part. And for those who knew of his mocking Karla Faye Tucker, a born-again woman whose execution he ordered as governor of Texas, his claims of compassion would never ring true.

Pew public opinion surveys in 47 countries found that during the Bush presidency, world opinion of the United States plummeted because a majority viewed President Bush and America as self-serving. In other words, less than compassionate.

Politics, religion, and compassion
Olasky believes that the Bible teaches that those who have “turned away from God” to sinful ways do not deserve compassion until they have a change of heart. To Olasky, compassion is tough love. The poor may be given help, but they have to continually prove that they are taking steps to pull themselves out of poverty.

Some similarly see compassionate conservatism as a way to deal with humankind’s “original sin” and natural tendency toward laziness. They insist that any aid given to the poor be coupled with moral guidance.

Many compassionate conservatives believe that without the influence of faith-based organizations (FBOs), financial handouts are harmful because they create dependency and undermine self-sufficiency and thus are actually “uncompassionate.” Political scientist, Deborah Stone in the Samaritan’s Dilemma, summarizes that belief as, “Help is harmful.”

As President, George W. Bush funneled millions of dollars into FBOs to provide services for the poor and disenfranchised. These FBOs would not only help make government smaller by taking over one of its traditional roles, they would add much needed moral guidance to social services.

However, to the extent that social services for the poor are channeled only into FBOs or to those of a particular religious persuasion, the threat of unintentional discrimination in the delivery of these services remains. Critics of compassionate conservatism say that integrity and responsibility can be learned independent of religion and that the “missionary” mentality undermines the effectiveness of the help offered.

Compassionate conservatism is not limited to the United States. Since 2000, the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party, under the leadership of David Cameron, has been advocating a variation on the American movement that puts greater emphasis on environmental and social justice issues. The UK brand of compassionate conservatism is less allied with Christianity than in the United States.

Public vs. private sectors
From a practical standpoint, arguments by compassionate conservatives and others to shift more of the responsibility for social services away from government and toward the private sector are flawed-both the public and private sectors have a role to play.

The private sector in modern societies has never supplied more than a small fraction of the necessary resources to help those in need. Charitable donations and time volunteered have never satisfied anywhere close to the demand for these services, even in the United States, which has a relative high rate of formal volunteerism.

Sociologist Robert Wuthnow compiled an immense collection of interviews and surveys in order to compare three types of organizations-congregations, faith-based social service organizations, and nonsectarian social service agencies in Saving America? Faith-Based Services and the Future of Civil Society, published in 2006. He concluded that in general, all three types of organizations did a good job of delivering services to those in need.

Wuthrow’s conclusion caught the attention of FBOs because he also presented strong evidence that they, as well as nonsectarian agencies, made a contribution to the social capital of American society by recruiting middle-class volunteers and connecting them to a community of low-income citizens. Probably the most important of Wuthnow’s findings is that the three types of organizations, to a large extent, compensate for each other’s limitations, and otherwise work together as a system.

This is not to say that the system fully meets the needs of the impoverished-far from it. It is noteworthy that the clients of the FBOs are more satisfied with the quality of the services received than are the clients of nonsectarian social service agencies; however, this may be a consequence of the clients’ own religious affiliation.

Many conservatives don’t subscribe to compassionate conservatism because they believe that when government dollars are channeled through faith-based nonprofits and congregations, it is still government aid and hence supposedly demeaning to recipients and too costly for tax payers. To the extent, that compassionate conservatism discourages donations of any kind to those in need, it risks being less than fully compassionate.

Editor’s Note: This site seeks to be nonpartisan and to avoid taking sides with any particular religion. We will support and oppose specific policies, in so far as they are consistent or inconsistent with authentic compassion. It is our assumption that people of all political parties, religions, and intellectual traditions can be motivated to act compassionately.

Imagine 3,000 homeless adults and children lined up outside a convention center in the middle of winter. Imagine this crowd moving inside and being greeted by 1,500 trained volunteers all wearing black shirts, all eager to help. The homeless guests then pick a black-shirted person who will be their guide for the day. That guide will stick with them and be their advocate until they get all the services they might need in that one space, services that include medical exams, vision care, hot meals, bike repair, housing opportunities, and such provisions as coats, sleeping bags, children’s clothing and personal hygiene items.

This is not a fantasy. First held in San Francisco in 2004, these events have now taken place in some 200 communities across the country. Organized by Project Homeless Connect, they combine political and civic commitment to provide hospitality, support, and resources to move people out of homelessness.

A short, six-minute YouTube video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Z9WwuZgQTY

of a recent San Francisco gathering shows Project Homeless Connect in action and the impact it has.

December 7, 2009 was a big day at the Minneapolis Convention Center for Project Homeless Connect.Thanks to 1400 volunteers and over 400 service providers, they were able to serve over 1600 people.Here are some highlights of the day:

708 people received free winter shoes
580 Minnesota IDs and Birth Certificates were issued and 200 more Birth Certificates applied for
393 people received legal consultation
305 people saw a dentist and 74 people had teeth extracted
224 people had their hair cut
214 people received Social Security assistance
200+ people received free reading glasses and 92 got new prescription glasses
175 people applied for housing, 179 placed on wait lists, and many moved into housing that week
163 veterans got connected to veterans’ specific benefits
122 people got connected with high school (GED) or college education programs
118 parents received child care resources
106 people received free voicemail accounts
102 people received urgent medical care and foot care
100 people enrolled in job training programs, 19 applied for employment
85 people received chiropractic care
65 people received help writing a resume
64 people received a mental health evaluation
57 people received 91 vaccines, including 52 H1N1 shots
54 people received referrals for free veterinary care
50+ youth were connected with age appropriate services
36 people received prescription medications and necessary medical equipment
16 people received damage deposits or rental assistance to move into apartments immediately

Project Homeless Connect is truly a transformative experience, not just for the guests, but for all who come together as a community to help break down the barriers that prevent people from escaping homelessness.

Shawn, homeless for three years, with his Guide,
Adria Richards. (photo from Flickr by Adria)

To what extent is homelessness a problem and why? Without telephones or a fixed address, the homeless are extremely difficult to count. (Generally, homelessness is defined as persons who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate night-time residence.)

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty estimated that in mid-2009, between 2.3 and 3.5 million people were experiencing homelessness in the United States. Of this number, 40 to 50 percent were 22-years old or younger and 30 percent had jobs.

In order to reduce homelessness, it is necessary to identify root causes. It is generally agreed that the lack of affordable housing is the principal explanation for homelessness. For example, in Minneapolis to afford rent on the cheapest apartment working at the minimum wage, one has to work at least 80 hours per week, which many people are not able to do because of child care and other obligations. While it is true that some of the homeless suffer from mental illness and/or substance abuse, much less than half of the homeless remain on the street because of these problems.

Project Homeless Connect is a wonderful model for bringing community resources to the aid of those in need of social services. However, even if it were to expand to thousands of communities in the United States, it would not eradicate homelessness. Making a huge and permanent dent in homelessness will require leadership, compassion, and a combination of public and private resources

Clinical psychologist Lorne Ladner, who wrote the excellent book, The Lost Art of Compassion, describes this practice as exercises that bring the conscious and unconscious aspects of the psyche “into alignment with our deepest values so that we can live them in a genuine and spontaneous way.”

Mindfulness is calm awareness of one’s thoughts, feelings, and body activity. Meditation and awareness exercises facilitate this ongoing consciousness, which is often called “practice”. While contemplation emerged out of Greek Philosophy and Christianity, and came to refer to a content-free awareness of God, many now refer to contemplative practices as encompassing mindfulness. In recent years, many educators and psychologists promote contemplative practices as tools for better learning and personal well-being.

The principal center promoting contemplative practices is the Center for Contemplative Mind in Society. One of their projects was to compile a list of contemplative practices and to depict them as the Tree of Contemplative Practices.

?
While the creators of this tree do not claim the list to be exhaustive, the tree depicts seven major types of contemplative practices:

• 1. stillness practices (e.g., sitting meditation and prayer)
• 2. movement practices (e.g., walking meditation and pilgrimage)
• 3. creation process practices (e.g., singing and chanting)
• 4. activist practices (e.g., volunteering and marches)
• 5. generative practices (e.g., visualization and kindness meditation)
• 6. ritual/cyclical practices (e.g., cultural ceremonies and rituals), and
• 7. relational practices (e.g., dialogue and storytelling)

Contemplative practices have the potential to develop personal compassion, and in groups to develop community and mutual caring. But the crucial point here is that they help to sustain compassion.

In the context of spiritual and political activism, contemplative practices may be the principal antidote to the stress and distraction that may result from activism.

Here is the complete text of the Charter for Compassion:

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honor the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

in both public and private life to refrain consistently and empathically from inflicting pain. To act or speak violently out of spite, chauvinism, or self-interest, to impoverish, exploit or deny basic rights to anybody, and to incite hatred by denigrating others-even our enemies-is a denial of our common humanity. We acknowledge that we have failed to live compassionately and that some have even increased the sum of human misery in the name of religion.

We therefore call upon all men and women-to restore compassion to the centre of morality and religion ~ to return to the ancient principle that any interpretation of scripture that breeds violence, hatred or disdain is illegitimate-to ensure that youth are given accurate and respectful information about other traditions, religions and cultures-to encourage a positive appreciation of cultural and religious diversity-to cultivate an informed empathy with the suffering of all human beings-even those regarded as enemies.

We urgently need to make compassion a clear, luminous and dynamic force in our polarized world. Rooted in a principled determination to transcend selfishness, compassion can break down political, dogmatic, ideological and religious boundaries. Born of our deep interdependence, compassion is essential to human relationships and to a fulfilled humanity. It is the path to enlightenment, and indispensible to the creation of a just economy and a peaceful global community.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCG4qryy1Dg

Karen Armstrong and others talk about the meaning of the
Charter for Compassion. The Charter for Compassion’s website is here. For additional analyze of the Charter, see the article on this website called “Far-Reaching Implications of the Charter for Compassion.”

After President Obama stated that he would use “empathy” as one criterion for selecting a candidate for the U. S. Supreme Court, negative responses flooded the media. President Obama talking in press conference about selecting a Supreme Court Justice gave his criteria as: sharp and independent mind; honors the constitution; respects the judicial process; and holds the judicial values upon which the country was founded. Then he mentioned an additional consideration: empathy.

Almost immediately political pundits on television screamed: “empathy is a codeword for social engineering.” Senator Orin Hatch said empathy is a codeword for “activist judge.” And Fox’s Laura Ingraham even said “Empathy is a loopy qualification for a Supreme Court judge.”
Comedians Colbert and Stewart gave the most penetrating perspective about the controversy on all of television that week.Stephen Colbert deduced from all the television verbiage that empathy must be code for “drug-addled evolutionist with swine flu.” And Jon Stewart on the Daily Show in essence concluded that loopy, conservative pundits wore hearing aids that only said “abortion, abortion, abortion” whenever Obama spoke about judicial appointments.
Blogs and newspaper opinion pieces, at the rate of about 10 to 1, dumped on empathy as an acceptable characteristic for a Supreme Court judge. Just like television, conservative politicians ridiculed the President in writing, claiming that empathy is a mere codeword for pro-choice and anti-guns. Writer after writer parroted the claim that empathy is the polar opposite of fairness and the rule of law.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Look up empathy in the dictionary and you will find it defined as simply the awareness of the feeling and situation of others. In essence, it is “putting yourself in another’s shoes.” For more on empathy, read the article on this site titled “Ingredients of Personal Compassion.”