Should Debate About Religion Be Open And Without Restraint?
Religion should not enjoy a privileged status, especially when many religious people strive to influence politics and public policy based on their religious beliefs. Do I violate some rule of civil discourse if I draw or publish a cartoon lampooning the Catholic Church’s position on abortion when the Catholic Church is trying to influence public policy on abortion? If so, I fail to understand the reason for such a rule. Such self-censorship merely serves to perpetuate the taboo mentality that has protected religion for too long.
http://secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=fi&page=expressing_religion
While I agree with the writer in principle (and the article is well worth reading), I have to reiterate a point that I have made a number of times on this blog.
Religion is not just another subject for debate. It is the foundation of the world view and hope for billions of people, in one form or another. Its roots go far deeper than belief in quantum theory or evolution, because its effects are discernible by ordinary people without arcane training, if they choose to interpret their world uncritically.
As compassionate practitioners, we owe it to believers to treat them gently. While it is true, as the writer points out, that they attempt to influence policy and government in the direction of their own beliefs, that is also true of other special interest groups, including secularists.
I believe it is fine to debate religious ideas, within reason.* However, we need to understand that when people’s core beliefs are threatened they become defensive and inflexible regardless of the content of those beliefs. To pound, willy-nilly, on issues they find threatening will only stifle debate, not extend it. Furthermore, to attempt to alter someone’s core beliefs without offering something that will adequately replace the framework of his life is to attempt cruelty of the first order.
Very few secularists were born to their belief system. Most of us came to it after many years of searching for a direction that made sense to us. Furthermore, some of us were traumatized by religious people, and have yet to deal adequately with those issues (which may explain some of the vehemence in discourse). So, let us debate if we must. But let us also remember that minds are unlikely to be changed, and — above all — that when it comes to religion logic, by definition, is not an issue (except, perhaps, for some Buddhist sects, and then only in principle, not necessarily with individuals).
And let’s be gentle, understanding that discussion is not battle and that, even if it were, this is not one that we are really equipped to win. We need to remember, also, that secularist fanatics are no more correct in their behavior than religious ones, regardless of the logic (or lack of it) in their arguments, because reasoned discourse requires mutual respect. How can we demand that of believers if we do not deliver it ourselves?
*If that’s not an oxymoron.
Am I A Buddhist?
Occasionally people find the stuff I write interesting enough to comment. One reader made some remarks yesterday that I found intriguing, and I thought I’d share his comment and my response with you.
The question of “Who Is A Buddhist” seems to occupy some folks’ minds quite a lot, since I see blog posts and articles about it all the time. (BTW, don’t forget to visit my commentator’s blog at the link below; it’s really interesting.) I don’t quite understand what all the fuss is about, and hadn’t given it a lot of thought. However, this gentleman’s question caused me to toss the idea around a bit.
I’d be curious of your take on my religiosity or lack thereof. It seems we share much but that you may be a bit more tolerant. Today I did a post asking if I am a Buddhist? which toys with the concept of orthodoxy, atheism and such. I liked this post. Thanx. I will follow you for a while.
Thanks for writing. It is an honor to have a reader who obviously takes such questions very seriously. Let me say from the outset that my opinions are only my opinions, and that I make no claim to guru-hood, roshiosity, or lamary. That said, I do think about it some.
First of all, it seems to me that a Buddhist does at least some of the things that Buddhists do, and believes at least some of the things that Buddhists believe — otherwise, calling oneself that would be meaningless. However, the attempt to quantify the whole thing would seem to indicate a grasping and attachment to names and labels that is not consonant with Buddhism (at least in terms of basics).
Second, there are as many Buddhist sects as there are Christian or Muslim. That renders the concept of “buddhism” pretty vague. I am of the Zen pursuasion, since my lack of religious belief and desire to experience my path with as few trappings as possible give it the most appeal. My approach, therefore, is as far from that of one who practices in some of the more esoteric areas of Tibetan Buddhism (for example) as a Quaker is from a Eastern Orthodox Patriarch — or the Archbishop from an Indio practicing the Central American variety of Catholicism, and consulting the local brujo on the side. On the other hand, from the Zen point of view I’m a touch aberrant, because I do not practice with a sangha, although I have taken the Precepts and sit zazen.
Third, there is the issue of tradition v. adaptation of Buddhist beliefs to modern conditions. Many practitioners believe that practice includes deep involvement with and discussion of the suttas and other writings. I believe that this is a good thing, but that one must live in the modern world, and that rational people approach teachings with that in mind. I am also mindful of the fact that there is absolutely no reason to believe, as Brad Warner is fond of pointing out, that there weren’t plenty of bullshit artists back in those days — just as there are today — who wrote about things from their ivory towers or thrones of personal aggrandizement without having actually lived the kinds of lives about which they pontificated.
Non-attachment is not about discarding the things of this life. It is about living life from moment to moment, dealing with issues as they arise, and neither coloring them with personal preference nor clinging to the results out of unwillingness to change. It’s about staying in the present and allowing ourselves to see its reality, letting it flow past and being concerned only about those things that we can (and need to) influence. This requires flexibility, and involves some number of unpleasant experiences such as having to change our minds about things (to which we might prefer to cling, because we feel comfortable in old mental clothes that are well-worn and broken in). In short, Buddhism is about practical reality, change, and — of its essence — is non-doctrinal. We adopt certain guidelines for living, certain practices that make it easier to follow those guidelines, and then we live them in our lives.
Which brings up my fourth point. If we are comporting ourselves with compassion, tolerance, kindness toward others, willingness to learn and change, living a balanced life, and are forgiving, loving and know how to laugh at ourselves and live joyfully when life affords us the opportunity, it doesn’t make any difference what we call ourselves. We are following the Middle Path whether we know it or not. If we are not living that kind of life, we probably need to make the changes and practice the skills that make it possible, and it makes no difference what we call the result of that, either.
So, I have no opinion about whether or not you are a Buddhist, and I don’t think it’s anything you should be worrying about, either. Adopt some guidelines that look good to you. Try to live a good life. Don’t mess with folks if you can avoid it. If you can’t avoid it, do as little harm as possible.* Be compassionate. You have my permission to call it anything you want.
*In fact, that’s the whole thing, right there.
LMAO!
Currently reading a pre-release copy of Brad Warner’s new book, Sex, Sin and Zen — available on Labor Day. Watch for a review.
PAWS after 10 years?
To Kevin,
Your uncle is not suffering from PAWS after 10 years. In the worst cases, Post-acute withdrawal lasts only about two years after complete abstinence. Complete abstinence includes opioid and synthetic opioid pain meds as well as all benzodiazepine tranquilizers, among other drugs.
There are a number of other conditions with similar symptoms, including diabetes. He needs to discuss them with a good internist, and he needs to be totally up front with the doc about his history of drug use and his recovery.
Youre Dead. Now What? – The Chronicle Review – The Chronicle of Higher Education
Friday the 13th – Origins, History, and Folklore
The sixth day of the week and the number 13 both have foreboding reputations said to date from ancient times, and their inevitable conjunction from one to three times a year (there happens to be only one such occurrence in 2010, in the month of August) portends more misfortune than some credulous minds can bear. According to some sources it’s the most widespread superstition in the United States today. Some people refuse to go to work on Friday the 13th; some won’t eat in restaurants; many wouldn’t think of setting a wedding on the date….
I run across people, on the Web and elsewhere, who seem directionless. They don’t seem engaged with their lives. Some seem simply to exist passively, with little pleasure and no discernible joy. Others flail around at this and that, become intrigued or outraged by every small thing that crosses their path and may, briefly, stop off and register their interest in some way. However, when push comes to shove, if you ask them what moves them, what their passion might be, they are often unable to answer. If they do, it’s often with a caveat: too old, too young, not enough time, can’t afford it, and so forth.
There is a temptation to think of those folks as shallow and superficial, but that is an arrogant (not to mention judgmental) attitude. It is not up to me to weigh the importance of someone else’s life, their degree of satisfaction and joy, or their lack thereof. I do, however, see folks who I believe could be happier, and I suspect that’s because they haven’t looked deeply enough into themselves. They haven’t identified the one or two things that they feel strongly enough to act on, instead of reacting.
I think everyone needs such an avocation: not a job, not a hobby, but something that is so important to them personally that they would work at it — whether or not for pay — in preference to many of the things that we conventionally think of as “fun.” Self-fulfillment is a basic human need, and I believe that in order to be happy we must pursue it in some way. We may not be able to change the world, but we can change our little corner of it, a little bit. We may not be able to affect history, but we can affect the future of individuals.
We can drive a disabled vet to the store or to the VA hospital. We can read to someone who is unable. We can volunteer as a Big Brother or Sister. We can call up a church, a charitable organization, a library, and ask if they need people to help with anything at all. We can volunteer at a local nature center and turn our love of critters or plants into an enthusiastic presentation that will engage budding naturalists. There are hundreds of such things that we can do, if we but look for them — things that allow us to make a difference that we can see, that is tangible, that can bring us satisfaction and fruits that we probably can’t imagine yet. The people I see doing these sorts of thing nearly always seem fulfilled and happy.
I’ve got mine. It’s not posting links on blogs or Facebook, not even writing essays like this. Those are things I do when I’m distracted — and I have a lot of distractions — but I also have time to pursue my “bliss”, as Joe Campbell used to say. It doesn’t matter what I do. What matters is what you do. I’ve found mine.
Have you? Will you look? Will you at least think about it?
The Banyan Deer — a parable of courage and compassion (Book Review)
It’s remotely possible that even those folks who consider themselves “serious” Buddhists may not have gotten around to reading the Nigrodhamiga-jataka (part of the Pali Jataka, a collection of 500 stories about the Buddha’s earlier lifetimes). Somehow, I find myself able to forgive such lapses. However, in addition to being a renowned writer of, among other things, childrens’ books, Rafe Martin has apparently delved into it — at least the first few stories.
Martin’s latest book, a slim volume entitled The Banyan Deer, is a not-too-modernized retelling of one of the Jataka tales (number 12). The writer has stayed with the common construction of Buddhist parables and allegories, building on the central theme, step by step, until the lesson is completely delivered. This repetitive form is common in oral storytelling. The repetitive and progressive structure helps listeners learn the stories themselves so that they can pass them along in their turn.
The Banyan Deer has an archetypical theme that speaks to all compassionate hearts, especially those of children. Martin tells the story of the deer king Banyan who, through his compassion for the members of his flock, turns the heart of the human king who has been hunting them and convinces him to spare them and their descendants from further hunting. This teaching and conversion theme is another that is common in Buddhist folklore, and it carries a message that is critical to Dharma in the present day.
Too long have I lived with danger
to let it fall so heavily on others.
How can I abandon them and be
at peace myself, knowing that my
freedom was bought at such a price?
…
…”Imagine that,” said the young deer.
“Yes, imagine it.”
Rafe Martin has told a story that is especially suited for reading to children. It has the feel of one of those tales from my childhood that I constantly nagged the adults to read to me again, pleeeeease? Don’t get the idea that it’s just for kids, though. Its lesson addresses the major problem in the world today, and its concepts of interbeing and compassion could well be our salvation in a physical sense — no metaphysics required (nor desired).
The Banyan Deer, by Rafe Martin
Wisdom Publications, Boston, 2010
ISBN 978-0-86171-625-8
Order it from Amazon
Clarification: The publisher provided the writer with a complimentary
copy of the book in return for this review.
Wealth, poverty and compassion: The rich are different from you and me
LIFE at the bottom is nasty, brutish and short. For this reason, heartless folk might assume that people in the lower social classes will be more self-interested and less inclined to consider the welfare of others than upper-class individuals, who can afford a certain noblesse oblige. A recent study, however, challenges this idea. Experiments by Paul Piff and his colleagues at the University of California, Berkeley, reported this week in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, suggest precisely the opposite. It is the poor, not the rich, who are inclined to charity.
Wealth, poverty and compassion: The rich are different from you and me | The Economist
Special Report: High finance and corporate pot, California style
While I don’t especially like the idea of introducing another legal drug to add to the problems we have with alcohol, it seems inevitable. It is certainly preferable to the completely inhumane laws that now send people to prison for selling weed, while down the street the government sanctions the sale (and taxation) of a substance that is known absolutely to destroy hundreds of thousands of lives a year.
“If California legalizes marijuana, the rest of the nation may well follow. One way or the other, cut rate, highly potent California weed is unlikely to stop at the state’s borders.
The U.S. state that first allowed sales of medicinal marijuana, in 1996, may take away all restrictions on adult use of the drug in a November vote, giving local governments the option to regulate sales and growing of marijuana.
The magnitude of the experiment is difficult to fathom — the world’s eighth largest economy will tear down barriers to the most used illegal drug in the United States….”
Quotes:
“Life is just one damned thing after another.”
~ Mark Twain (Samuel L. Clemens)
Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.
~ Zen proverb
Desktop Shrine
The Value and Harm of Religion
People who believe that I am an Atheist sometimes seem nonplussed that I’m tolerant of religion in general. There appears to be an idea amongst some non-believers that they must either be completely disinterested in religious ideas, or vehemently opposed and outspoken about it. In either case, it seems, they must be prepared to pooh-pooh “superstition” and point out at the drop of a hat all the evils perpetrated in the names of various gods throughout history, and all of the ways that the shamans take advantage of the folks they’ve hoodwinked. While I find the former positions distastefully closed-minded, I am indeed inclined to agree with the latter — at least when it involves the religious hierarchy.
My feeling is that those who are obtrusively dogmatic, pro or con, are just as bound up by the chains of their beliefs as any fanatic building bombs in the mountains of Pakistan. To paraphrase John Bradshaw, a 180 degree turn leaves us in the same rut, only now we’re moving against the flow and annoying the other travelers. If we want to change things, we need to get off the treadmill for a different perspective.
For the record, I am neither an Atheist nor an Agnostic. The latter claim that they are not convinced of the existence of a god or gods, the former that they are convinced that there are no such entities. I am Ignostic, one who believes that no discussion about the question of gods’ existence can even be held, because it is not possible to come up with a coherent definition of a god. To put it another way, I believe that when it comes to gods, no one really knows what they’re talking about, and no one ever will.
But I am not anti-religious. I try to practice Buddhism which is, by most definitions, a religion. While I accept that definition, I do not practice for religious reasons, but because Buddhist teachings give me a structure, based on pure logic, around which I can try to live my life and discipline my thinking.
That gets around to my position on religion in general. I believe it is inevitable, for most people in most circumstances, and that generally-speaking it does far more good than harm. It provides structure, guidance, community, hope — in short, a framework for living. It matters not a whit to me whether the underlying beliefs are pure superstition or divine revelation, except when religious teachings are used for ill rather than good; to separate, rather than to draw people together.
The folks who administer religion are usually the problem in that regard. They are the ones who teach, by their example, inflexibility, lack of compassion (although many of them give great lip service), and who perpetuate the tribal concepts of “us” and “other,” with their implied conclusions that “we are right” and “they are wrong.” They are the ones who foster self-serving and self-congratulatory, complacent followers who seem unwilling or unable to think for themselves.
This tribal thinking is, perhaps, hard-wired into some people’s brains. We are beginning to learn that the brains of liberals literally function somewhat differently than those of conservatives. There is every reason to believe that such dichotomies are necessary in primitive societies. They are not, however, appropriate to situations such as those that exist on the Earth at present, with many people in need, and many who are unwilling to share. This seems often to involve use of force on both sides, and in many circles it seems that two wrongs are presumed to make a right…or, at least, a lot of money for the people who profit from wars and strife in general.
Those are character defects that are engendered and supported by some shamans in the guise of the “will of God/Allah,” and in that respect religion is not a good thing at all.
The troubles in the world today cannot, it seems to me, be resolved by black and white thinking. The True Believer in the hut is evidence of that, and those who attempt to hunt him down, without regard to the number of innocents killed in the process, are yet another. People who seem to feel that they must contradict the beliefs of others, and put down the intelligence of those who believe other than they, are a third. That ain’t how you build togetherness, folks.
Ben Franklin wrote at another critical point in history, “If we do not hang together, we shall certainly hang separately.” As long as we continue to blame our problems on the other guy, we continue our trek to the gallows. To the extent that religion (or non-religion) supports that journey, it is most certainly at fault.
