南無, Translations, Worship, Buddhism and Being Stuck

Over at The Worst Horse, there's an interesting exchange arising from a fundamentalist Christian pastor with a geriatric congregation who applauds the pastor's acting out of his anger management issues.  As Rod/Worst Horse points out,

“We don’t worship Buddha,” says pastor Dennis Terry, introducing Rick Santorum while preaching to the choir in the newly posted video... Well, that’s not something most Buddhists say they do, either — at least not many Western Buddhists; rather, it’s more often the case that we look at the historical Buddha as an example of a real human being who proved that liberation from suffering was possible.

I noted that

This is a very interesting point, but actually more than a few Western Buddhists do express worship to the Buddha when they chant the Vandana  

To which Rod/Worst Horse replies

Well, that’s true, except for some this is a vocalisation of recognizing a quality inherent in ourselves and in others.

Yah, you got that right.  But Neal in the comments says,

@Mumon It is my understanding that the English translation of the Vandana is “I venerate the Sacred One, the Great Sage, the Truly Enlightened One.”
It is also my understanding that the word “venerate” means to revere or respect. Not quite the same as worship.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.

 I want to explore Neal's comment a bit, especially in regard to how it reflects Western Buddhist thinking, but first I'm afraid we'll have to go on a language excursion.  OK, well, let's go to the dictionary:

wor·ship

 [wur-ship] Show IPA noun, verb, -shiped, -ship·ing or ( especially British ) -shipped, -ship·ping.

noun

1. reverent honor and homage paid to God or a sacred personage, or to any object regarded as sacred.

2. formal or ceremonious rendering of such honor and homage: They attended worship this morning.

3. adoring reverence or regard: excessive worship of business success.

4. the object of adoring reverence or regard.

5. ( initial capital letter ) British . a title of honor used in addressing or mentioning certain magistrates and others of high rank or station (usually preceded by Your, His,  or Her ). 

 Since in many translations that I've seen of Buddhist liturgies the word "homage" is used, this might be enough, in my opinion, but just to be sure,  the definition of "veneration" does indeed list reverence as a synonym for veneration.

As I said, Rod/Worst Horse is right about this being a vocal expression of a quality that inheres to us. The operative word that is worship/homage/veneration here is 南無, expressed in Japanese chanting as "namu" (なむ）and Mandarin and Pali as "namo." That 南無 in Chinese and Japanese is obviously a transliteration of the Pali is evident from the meaning of the characters composing 南無; 南 means "South" and "無" is the mu meaning "not" or the prefix "un" as in "wireless" being 無線 ,  (musen) in Japanese.    Jeffrey's Japanese-English dictionary's definition of 南無 lists several uses the term, none of which use the term "worship," but all of which seem to be dancing around the word somehow.  I do think the case can be made that indeed, "worship," "homage to," and "venerate" can be used interchangeably for 南無 here, because of the uses of the term where we find it, and noted translations of it.

 For example, Jeffrey's Japanese-English Dictionary includes the Nichiren chant 南無妙法蓮華経 (namu myouhourengegyou) - oh, I should note the "ou" usage connotes an extended "oh" sound, in case you're interested.  南無妙法蓮華経 is translated as "Homage to the Lotus Sutra."

For us Zen folks,  many of us chant 延命十句觀音經 ("Emmei Jukku Kannon Gyou").  Hakuin scholar Philip Yampolsky translates that sutra as:

Kanzeon! Salutation and devotion to the Buddha!
We are one with the Buddha
In cause and effect related to all Buddhas
and to Buddha Dharma and Sangha.
Our true nature is
Eternal, Joyous, Selfless and Pure.
So let us chant every morning
Kanzeon with Nen (attention)
Every evening Kanzeon with Nen!
Nen Nen arises from Mind
Nen Nen is not separate from Mind.

(Note to Prof. Yampolsky: Please forgive my bad editing; I'm wrestling with Blogger.) The phrase "Salutation and devotion to the Buddha" is what is rendered from 南無佛, ("namu butsu") and yeah, 佛 means "the Buddha."

The most common expression of the use of 南無 would be the Pure Land use of it; which is rendered in Japanese as "阿弥陀仏," (namu amida butsu) or, evidently, 阿弥陀佛.  It's also the most common form of Buddhist homage in Chinese (where, to the best of my knowledge, it would be rendered in Mandarin as "namu amito fo.")  In Chan Buddhist temples in China you'll be greeted with 阿弥陀佛.

Ok, I think I've beaten that ...oh, I better not use that metaphor- as I said Rod/Worst Horse is right.


 I didn't want to write this because I wanted to bore anyone with my meager knowledge of comparative linguistics or whatever you call the stuff I wrote above. The real reason I wanted to write about this is because I think it  -and that rage filled pastor that Rod/Worst Horse referenced, underscores a kind of fault-line in Western convert Buddhism.  I first encountered it when my teacher, leading a ceremony honoring the Buddha's birth, invited us to engage in a ceremony by saying, "Let us worship the Buddha." I, myself, felt it right there: Hey, wait a second!  Nobody said anything about worshiping anything!  Later I read stuff such as the above and I became convinced: what we regard as "worship" is a "good" thing when we mean reverent honor, respect, and veneration, but we think it's a "bad" thing when we mean "bowing down before the other evil guy's false deity," or something like that.   We associate "worship" with what that hateful pastor does, whereas we venerate, reverently honor, etc. But they both mean the same thing!

Now I find that pastor's brand of fundamentalism repulsive; that is, I am viscerally repulsed by a crowd of angry people being stirred up by a person displaying anger conveniently speaking for a god who is only present as anger.  And he may not - he certainly is not worshiping, reverently honoring, or venerating that aspect of us which transcends suffering, greed, hatred and ignorance.  But I don't think I'm adequately doing my own transcendence if I let him - or rather my perception of him - if I let my perception of him  get to own the word "worship" as a bad thing in and of itself.  If we are venerating the separation of ourselves from others, if we are venerating our own greed, hatred and ignorance, if I am acting out of my own visceral repulsion, I find it very difficult to see past where that pastor is; I limit my own freedom to act out of generosity, compassion, and wisdom.

And that's why I wanted to mention this.

Good for the Hindu American Foundation!

I see that the Hindu American Foundation is leading a campaign called "Take Back Yoga."

The campaign, labeled “Take Back Yoga,” does not ask yoga devotees to become Hindu, or instructors to teach more about Hinduism. The small but increasingly influential group behind it, the Hindu American Foundation, suggests only that people become more aware of yoga’s debt to the faith’s ancient traditions.

That suggestion, modest though it may seem, has drawn a flurry of strong reactions from figures far apart on the religious spectrum. Dr. Deepak Chopra, the New Age writer, has dismissed the campaign as a jumble of faulty history and Hindu nationalism. R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has said he agrees that yoga is Hindu — and cited that as evidence that the practice imperiled the souls of Christians who engage in it. 

 Well, if Deepak Chopra is against it (and his excuses seem ridiculous based on the HAF's website) and Albert Mohler's discouraging Christians from engaging in it, I think the HAF is probably onto something here.  While like any group like this (including those Buddhists who look for science to "prove" Buddhism) there's the share of HAF claims that seem a bit over the top.  For example, I have read that Hinduism also owes debts to Jainism and Buddhism; Hinduism also evolved as reactions to these religions as well. 

But when it comes to the commoditization of practices, that, for want of a better term the word "spiritual" may be used (much as I loathe the term), I think a religious identification can't really hurt.

Beliefs, Wishes, Delusions

I had written a few months ago about Kessid Church and how it seemed a bit deceptive of them to have what was in effect a fundamentalist church that was "fed" new members by a health club.  Well, the chickens have come home to roost for Kessid Church- follow this link and watch the (flash - not iPhone/iPad friendly) video on the page from about the 15:00 mark.

I hadn't seen the comment left on my blog post until now:

As a Christian I can Assure you that even Jesus Christ was against organzied "religion". Christianity is about loving God, loving others and sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ to the rest of the world. Mumon you seem to be very leary of any group that doesn't fit into your fundamentalist "box" [sic]. How is promoting Gods genuine love corrupting Vancouver and the greater Clark County area? If anything Christianity is bringing back moralistic ideals to an already declining society. I welcome you with open arms brother, you don't have to like me or my beliefs but know that regardless how angry you are right now, God still loves you! :)  

Now I wasn't in the least bit "angry" of course when I wrote that post, or the e-mail to that church.  But I think it's likely that this is what was in the minds of the folks at Kessid Church when they started their venture: They thought they  were "promoting God's genuine love" and "bringing back moralistic ideals to an already declining society."  (I am always intrigued by how conservatives are inevitably using adjectives with "-ic" on the end of the word when there's a perfectly good alternative, nearly identical, that's shorter and means exactly the same thing.  Can somebody tell me why they do that?  But I digress.)

They likely thought they  were "promoting God's genuine love" and "bringing back moralistic ideals to an already declining society."   The hubris behind such a statement is breathtaking to me. They were promoting "God's" "genuine" "love."  Anyone who believed differently from them was not.  And they had morality on their side.  They had a guy who could suspend not only disbelief, but the laws of physics, economics, biology, and mathematics for His People.  We other skeptical schmucks were "stuck" with reality.

"Nobody could have predicted" then, that such hubris might lead some folks to think that such a belief might lead them to make rash choices, such as that the cash flow from a health club could pay the freight on a budding megachurch.  And this in a place - where two other outfits had failed before, one in an economic boom time.  And this in a time when the region's economy was in free-fall, in the worst economic decline since the Great Depression. I do hope the place taking over the club, though succeeds.  Not that I'll join them, but I do hope the area comes back; Vancouver WA is still in a real-estate depression, relative to boom times.  But the complete insanity of what these guys did; it's breathtaking.   We've had some economic successes locally recently, but these have generally been places that have folks behind them who know what they're doing because they've done it before.  The Kessid guys were evidently utter, rank newbies, by comparison.

It is clear from watching the video to which I've linked that these guys were young,  enthusiastic, and utterly without the sort of business-sense needed to build a resilient operation.   That is why I sent them an e-mail, empathizing with their loss, reminding them of Buddha's parable of the mustard seed,  and hoping they would understand that in one's endeavors, skill is often more important than belief.

I hope  they will come to realize that it was the hubris and greed of taking their beliefs for reality, and becoming to attached to those beliefs, and the "wants" behind those beliefs that is related to their debacle.  It would make them ultimately healthier, happier, and  better able to really be  part of our community, which includes people of all types.

And to provide a bit of contrast on the topic, here's some folks trying to live on one dollar a day. While they too seem young, idealistic, and perhaps slightly naive, I think their feet are more on the ground and they are more connected to reality, at least as we are aware, than the Kessid crowd.

Update: Evidently they did keep the "center" separate from the church.  Except - and if you read the article and comment tellng me, "See! They used a manager!"  please  remember the folowing:  they made a blunder so colossal words fall short: by calling the thing "Kessid Center."   Consciously or unconsciously,  this  harebrained branding scheme  a) conflated the center with the church and b) conflated the center with a weird, foreign-sounding word  (even though it's Hebrew for something good, I'm told).  The latter effect of course would drive away nativists, and the first one would drive away Progressives.

But then, it seems like a good idea to keep church and workouts separate.

Of course...

I think the troglodytes running Walnut CA are in deep doo-doo over their actions prejudicial to Buddhists.

I would also point out that their best response - as I'm sure their lawyers have told them - is not to say a word at the moment.

Recognizing that, I think though that a nice missive via e-mail to them might point out to them that the sooner they settle this issue, the sooner it will all go away for them...and they might be able to salvage their careers. 

One doesn't want to be on the wrong side of a legal action, especially if that "one" is a person who is performing outside of the duties of their office. 

And so while I truly appreciate Kyle's efforts here,  I tend to think this will all play out to a good outcome for Buddhists, because nobody likes to be on the wrong side of a protracted legal action brought about by the Federal government.

American Buddhists are silent about the mosque? Is that the biggest issue we face?

Danny Fisher asks why "Buddhists are sitting out the Islamaphobia debate."  This, to me, is a rather naive viewpoint, and completely and utterly misses the larger point: the brouhaha over building mosques in America is but a tiny piece of a much larger strategem by the right wing in this country in which it seeks to take power, to the detriment of all Americans.

It's but a tiny piece of a larger puzzle.  For example, it would do all well to speak out and oppose some of the nonsense that is going on in this year's ballot measures. Among them are measures which are clearly arising out of racist intent, a contempt for human existence, and a desire to cede ground on the environment. 

But, to be fair, it is somewhat unreasonable for all Buddhists to act like nice progressives on these issues; some of us aren't progressive.  I just bring up the points because the mosque issues are just one facet of a concerted effort by the right wing to divide us so they may continue to enrich themselves at our expense.  And that's a much bigger issue than the mosque- because it's the root issue of the mosque.  But, as many have routinely pointed out, "engaged" Buddhism can often wind up being one big ego trip.  As for myself, I am quite politically involved thank you very much on the left side of things.  And if you aren't trying to get the "big picture" then there's likely a whole host of issues you're missing.

Too, Fisher's characterization of "Buddhists" as passive observers in all this is quite incorrect.  Many of us have been doing that.    Furthermore, his characterization of the atheist bashing Dalai Lama  (I could  also mention "Dorje Shugden follower suppressing" ) as someone who is someone who "offer[s] ways of engaging that are rooted in practice" is itself ignorant of other forms of religious bigotry in the Buddhist camp that get a free pass from him - and other American Buddhists.

I share the concerns of Fisher regarding the rights of Muslims to build mosques anywhere they please.  But, Danny, please spare us the moralistic lectures, and the Dalai Lama isn't an example of Buddhism to American Buddhists in general.

The other side of fundamentalist religious oppression

As Barbara notes here, one component of it is a fear of losing one's self - but there is another component. And it's a type of hubris, greed, and narcissism, based on a denial of a fundamental self-evident observation of  human behavior in the human condition, as succinctly put by R. D. Laing:

I see you, and you see me. I experience you, and you experience me. I see your behaviour. You see my behaviour. But I do not and never have and never will see your experience of me. Just as you cannot "see" my experience of you. My experience of you is not "inside" me. It is simply you, as I experience you. And I do not experience you as inside me. Similarly, I take it that you do not experience me as inside you.
"My experience of you" is just another form of words for "you-as-l-experience-you", and "your experience of me" equals "me-as-you-experience-me". Your experience of me is not inside you and my experience of you is not inside me, but your experience of me is invisible to me and my experience of you is invisible to you.

And:

I cannot experience your experience. You cannot experience my experience. We are both invisible men. All men are invisible to one another. Experience used to be called The Soul. Experience as invisibility of man to man is at the same time more evident than anything. Only experience is evident. Experience is the only evidence.

We can take "experience"  for Buddhist purposes to mean one's own collection of the 5 aggregates and the various forms of consciousness.  When I declare that your experience invalid because of either my experience or some external to both of our experiences (such as somebody's opinion of "scripture" or  what someone was told "God's intention" or "God's words" were, this is a statement against your very being.  In the case where either of us are citing something external to invalidate both of our experiences, this is a statement directed against both of us.

Although we can "see areas light up in the brain" corresponding to all kinds of human thoughts, feelings, emotions, hallucinations, volitions and sensations, these can never be the equivalent if any person actually experiencing those thoughts, feelings, sensations, emotions, hallucinaitons, and volitions.

Despite what I have experienced in my life, I  really don't have a clue as to why Lindsay Lohan  is messed up, or what makes a fundamentalist tick,  what's in Eddie Long's brain, or any of a thousand other such questions.  Only the principals know what's in their hearts and minds. True, there is empathy and compassion, but this empathy and compassion is counterfeit if it does not take into account that what another is experiencing is really experienced..

It is this invalidation of others that is the beginning of all kinds of religious exploitation, and all the big religions have done it from time to time.  I practice Buddhism in part because by placing the issues with regard to the Way on the individual, at least in my school, much of this harm can be avoided.  And that's another reason, as I say, that such practices are the last best hope for religion. Maybe Taoism and Jainism are too.

D'uh! Of course many Americans think Buddhism is a cult! Look how non-Buddhists talk about us and then look at our "luminaries" and what they say & do ...

On Saturday, Barbara O'Brien expressed dismay, dismay at the idea that, um, some Americans might not perceive the prospect of a Buddhist temple down the street in the same way that they might perceive the prospect of a Methodist Church down the street.  And then yesterday, Tricycle's Rachel Hiles posts on the blog a similar post.  Both posts mention this article on the Newsweek site...

While researching their forthcoming book about American religion, the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and his colleagues polled on this hypothetical question: Say a group of Buddhists wanted to build a large temple in your community. How would you feel? Putnam & Co. asked about Buddhists because, they had discovered, Buddhists are one of the least popular religious groups in the country. People like Buddhists less than they do atheists and Mormons—and only slightly more than they do Muslims. Like Muslims, Buddhists “do not have a place in what has come to be called America’s Judeo-Christian framework,” Putnam and his coauthor, David Campbell, write in American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us. The book comes out next week...

 OK, to the point: look how Buddhism gets portrayed in the US media:

And it wasn't just Larry King...






To my knowledge, this is the only time someone who was referred to as a Zen practitioner  has been portrayed in American TV media. (OK, let's leave out Phil Jackson. And, OK, I remember Joan Halifax was on Firing Line a couple of decades ago, if my memory's correct.  )

And of course...

OK, he's your kindly Tibetan uncle.  But, um, frankly, he might have been a great poet, but this guy was scary to a large portion of America raised on Swanson TV dinners and Jell-o:



I've always  wanted to write a satire and/or comedic film adaptation of Howl, but I digress...

Elsewhere in America,  there's Terry Jones,  and the omnipresent availability of fundamentalist Christian media in America. I don't want to spend much time getting into that; I've done that quite a bit here; even correcting atheists and "metaphysical naturalists" on their misconceptions about Buddhism.

There are distortions aplenty these days by the right wing, the left wing, and the mainstream media about Buddhism in America.  There are like distortions about Buddhism written in this very blog about Buddhism in America.

Look, quite simply if  American Buddhists want a better image of Buddhism in America, they're going to have to do a better job of  presenting themselves as Buddhists in America.  So, among other things, it might be a good idea for American Buddhists to take a noticeable step back  from the loonies, the radicals, the folks in MSIA, the folks in the Lenz Foundation, and all that hooey. I'm talking to you recipients of the largess of the Lenz Foundation, and those folks that don't have a problem with the Huffington Post's censorship policies.

P.Z. Myers has a point...

Although it's grossly insensitive to many people's beliefs, if the first amendment is real, and if you have no problem with flag burning as far as the first amendment is concerned, or Nazis marching in Skokie Illinois (ACLU first amendment cases that were decided in favor of free speech) then I think our system could stomach a lunatic who wants to burn "Korans". (I saw some footage, and it looked like they were burning translations of the Koran, and as anyone who knows anything about Islam knows, a translation of the Koran just ain't the Koran.)

The lesson of that incident [where Myers "desecrated" a communion wafer]  wasn't that you can find some jerk somewhere who will disrespect what some group finds holy — that was trivial and uninteresting, and I actually had to ignore many of the elaborate suggestions for cracker disposal sent my way to emphasize the absolute triviality of tossing a cracker/piece of Jesus in the trash. No, the real lesson was that mobs of people will react with irrational freakish hysteria to the idea that other people don't believe as they do.
The problem isn't the desecrators. The problem is the people who have an unwarranted sense of privilege, that their beliefs will not be questioned or criticized, ever, by anyone. What I was saying was that it was crazy to believe a cracker turns into Jesus, and what all the outraged Catholics were doing is confirming to an awesome degree just how mad their beliefs were, with their prolonged and excessive outrage.
So I'm looking at this recent episode with Terry Jones — a fellow I don't like at all, and I think he's a fanatical goofball — and I see that the serious problem here isn't Jones at all…it's all the lunatics who are insisting that burning the Koran is a major international catastrophe.
It's just a frackin' book, people.

 And yeah, there's folks that this is the "very word of  a deity" spoken to a guy in Arabia long ago, but if freedom speech and religion means anything, it means the freedom to ridicule, insult, and yes, "desecrate" whatever others think is "holy."

Now whether this guy Terry Jones should burn Korans is another issue; the guy's clearly Koo-Koo for CoCo Puffs^®.

And our way of life can even handle clowns like this guy who's going to be at a "Value" "Voters" "Summit."  (How come that "value" has come to mean "low quality?" Maybe it's the same way that the meaning of the word "cynic"  has evolved.)  And I think the word "clown" here is not meant to be derrogatory, it's meant to describe psychologically what this man represents functionally in our public square.

Bryan Fischer, the "Director of Issues Analysis" for the American Family Association, wrote a blog post yesterday that argues that "Germany is giving us a template on how we handle Muslims: just like we handle neo-Nazis," which amounts to German police carrying "out 30 predawn raids against the nation's largest neo-Nazi group two days ago."
Fischer is known for his Islamophobia, previously arguing that the U.S. should have "no more mosques, period," because "every single mosque is a potential terror training center or recruitment center for jihad" and thus "you cannot claim first amendment protections if your religious organization is engaged in subversive activities."...

Fischer, who is scheduled to speak at the conservative Value Voters summit this month alongside Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Mike Huckabee and others, also wrote: "I see no reason why our policies toward Islam in the West in general and America in particular should not be a mirror image of our policies toward the neo-Nazi movement."
Fischer adds that "our aim should be to make it as unthinkable for a resident of America to embrace Islam as we have made it to embrace Aryan Nations ideology. And for the same reasons."

 Finally, one more bit courtesy of P.Z. Myers...

Go read this post by Tom Armstrong

Here, wherein he notes a big distortion of Jack Kornfield in the Sacramento "Loaves and Fishes" "homeless ministry" "newsletter"  wherein they make a plea for money disturbingly reminiscent (to me at any rate) of the pitches of "missionaries" to Native Americans and Alaskan Indigenous People for money from the middle classes using  metaphors akin to the "foreign" "noble savage."

The contrast between the dana requested by these missionaries and that of the Forest Monks is telling: clearly the "Christians"  wish to portray the ultimate recipients of the dana as separate from them as well as the original givers.

Tom doesn't quite say those things; what he says is perhaps more significant than anything I could say here.

Odd ads Google is giving me...

In addition to the ads in the corner above, I've had ads for the "Southlake Foursquare church," and "Church! at bethany." 

Hey if you want to click on 'em go ahead; I have no problem accepting money from fundamentalist churches.  I plan to donate 1/2 my revenues to a good Buddhist charity or my temple.  Not that I've had any revenues yet, but that's my plan.

This is what they do with used fitness centers in my area...

A Bally's fitness center closed way back in September of last year.  That was a net benefit for me, as I convinced my wife to let me join the Lacamas Swim and Sport club, which has much better facilities than Bally's had anyway. I'm told it's owned by triathletes, so they kind of serious and non-corporate about how they do things.

But my wife was hoping the Bally's center would revert to another owner who would re-open it.  Well, they did, kind of.  They are becoming apparently "Kessid Church" and "Kessid Center," a part of Kessid Church.

"Kessid Church" had been meeting here, which looks a lot like their "vision" (a scheme is not a vision, as Leonard Cohen sang) of what "Kessid Church" or, uh "Kessid Center" should be.

What's truly fascinating to me is not that Yet Again Some Other Fundamentalist Cult has tried to open shop in my neighborhood (we Pacific Northwestern folk are among the most "unchurched" folk in the country, don't you know), but that unlike most cults, they absolutely refuse to disclose what they believe or practice, other than a couple of generalities:

At our core we hold two important ideals: Intimacy with God, and being “less than.” Our Kessid logo is symbolic of both these principles. The red line represents intimacy with God. Through His blood, we can receive pure forgiveness. The acceptance of Christ’s forgiveness allows us to become a part of His family. This is our direct line between God and us. It connects us to Him in a bond that can’t ever be broken. When we allow Christ to examine our souls we are revealed for what we really are, and both our beauty and brokenness are exposed. “True intimacy is not without Judgment, yet, it is just the opposite. It’s about being completely known scars and all, without loosing even one strand of beautiful” -Anonymous. Here we are forgiven and released!



Most importantly, we believe that intimacy with God comes before all forms of ministry. If we can always strive for intimacy with God, the outpouring will be Holy Spirit led and feed ministry of all kinds. The < in the “K” represents the “less than” sign. In everything we do we want to do it with a humble and quiet spirit. “It’s about being content to let others discover the layers of our talents without having to boast about them. It’s a lack of arrogance, not a lack of aggressiveness in the pursuit of achievement.” – Bruna Martinuzzi. Kessid wants to be a church who does ministry without applause. This means we can do amazing things through Christ for our church and community without having to tell people how great we are.

Oh, I left out one other bit before that:

We want to infect the community and existing organizations that help serve our area, with our time, talent, and resources. 

I'm fascinated by this.  These guys clearly have your typical fundamentalist background, but they feel compelled to soft - pedal it.  They are, I think, outstanding communicators given their age - they're true believers you can be sure of that.  Luckily they have a contact page!

So, uh, I plan on writing them with a few questions...

• Why do you feel that you can't list your beliefs or Church lineage structure or heritage with any greater degree of specificity than you do on your website? Is your acceptance of that heritage so weak you are afraid people won't like it?
• You say  that you would like the Kessid Center to be open to the community and promote healthy living and lifestyle for all ages.  Would that mean you would be OK with Zen Buddhists visiting your facility? Practicing Zen Buddhism there? 'Cause we Zen Buddhists try to take our Zen Buddhist practice wherever we go.
• Seriously, though, you folks seem committed, and that might be a good thing, provided you're not fans of the Republican Party, or other right wing groups.  How do we live together? I personally have no illusions that I can dissuade you from your belief system, though I would love to tell you what my practice is and how it helps beings.  But with the world the way it is today, maybe your behavior is indicative of how we should proceed.  You folks are Christians.  I'm a Zen Buddhist.  Many others are atheists, agnostics, and other paths.  Isn't the stated path relatively unimportant? Shouldn't it be? Most likely we're all alone here, and no one's going to rescue us.  How can we survive when we all think everyone else's belief system is bullshit?  Shouldn't in such a case we merely proceed to get along forgetting such ideologies and "-isms?"

I'll be posting their response here.

On Sex and Religion

On P.Z. Meyers' post on the Smut for Smut exchange, I have some observations and qualifiers...

• I have no problem with his basic point; which is, the Christian Bible can easily be read as fostering greed, hatred, and ignorance. It is not the only way to read this book though; there are ways of reading that book, as Isaac Azimov did in his guide to the bible, that are more historically accurate. King Josiah, in such a reading, was a religious bigot whose behavior eventually brought down his kingdom.
• But a very vocal group of people today argue for a less wise reading of this book, which to me would on its own justify its exchange for non-exploitative pornography, if there can be such a thing.
• I'm not certain there is such a thing as non-exploitative pornography. On a one perspective, what is valuable in participants in this activity remains what it is, but on another view, precious time has been taken in their lives, at the very least. I suppose if two people loved each other, and it was their choice to make public what most folks want to do in private...
• But I would say the overwhelming, overwhelming rule in the porn world is that it is exploitative, and we ourselves continue this by creating and sustaining a world in which people are driven to this out of economic desperation and exploitation and coercion.
• Meyers asks, "How does [exchange of bibles for porn] denigrate religion, unless you're assuming that sexuality is a sin, a corruption, a filthy offense to the gods?" I agree; if your religion is big enough, even the thought of porn should be drive you back into your practice. But of course there are people who assume that their religion is "over there" away from themselves!
  

P.S. The above right picture is in one of Philip Kapleau's books, and in that book he talks about the nonduality of Bodhidharma (a.k.a. "daruma" in Japanese) and prostitute (also commonly called a "daruma.") What Kapleau doesn't say is that prostitutes care more likely called "darumas" because they "fall down and get up," rather than the Japanese have some deep profound insight in the deeply holy ladies of the evening.

Think about it.

P.P.S. Also consider the Zennist's post re: Mara. Even that being is to be liberated.

The Religious Right Gets Repugnant in Amaraillo Texas

Think Progress has news of what can only be called a Christian hate group.

An evangelical Christian hate group called “Repent Amarillo” is reportedly terrorizing the town of Amarillo, Texas. Repent fashions itself as a sort of militia and targets a wide range of community members they deem offensive to their theology: gays, liberal Christians, Muslims, environmentalists, breast cancer events that do not highlight abortion, Halloween, “spring break events,” and pornography shops. On its website, Repent has posted a “Warfare Map” of its enemies in town.

And they don't like Buddhists one bit. If you look at the map in the link, for example, at the green push-pin in the upper right hand corner they've "targeted" Wat Lao Buddharam as a place where they have identified as having "idol worship" and a "false god."

And if you read their "Mission" page clearly they think it's within their "mission" to harass non-Christians, and that includes Buddhists.

I hope people of all religions and non-religions can join together to help expose this group for what it is.

Delusion...

Every now and then I search around the blogosphere to find out what others are saying about things, inter alia, Buddhism.

And every now and then you come across something that makes the commenters on Bill Harris's blog look level-headed...

I am most grateful for one organization, Lighthouse Trial Publishers (I agree with a great deal of their articles) which is disturbing the wickedness that continually infiltrates Christianity. I know personally that Northwest Nazarene University is full of demonic agendas. They hated me (a juror) for complaining to them concerning one of their professors who defended a dangerous drunk driver in court. He endeavored to come across as Mr. Religious, being a professor at a Bible university. He attempted to show the police as incompetent. They were totally competent as the video of the incident revealed. The defendant was convicted as rightly guilty. The whole trial was ugly and the response from the college to me was cruel and undeserved. They treated me like a criminal for complaining...

Which doesn't link to, but quotes this:

Below is a link to a video* of a lecture that took place at Northwest Nazarene University in Idaho, one of the Nazarene Universities that is strongly promoting the contemplative/emerging spirituality. The lecture, presented by NNU Thomas Oord and College of Idaho, Denny Clark, was taught by Dr. Jay McDaniel, a self-proclaimed “Christian” Buddhist universalist sympathizer who is said to be highly influenced by the late Catholic panentheistic monk, Thomas Merton. This is an 83 minute video, but for those who want to understand the paradigm shift that has occurred in the church and continues wooing millions with the mystical, universalist spirituality, this video is well worth the watch. But we warn you, it is very disturbing. Here is are two quotes from Jay McDaniel in the video:

“God has been … luring all people in the world toward different forms of wisdom … and we don’t have to equate them. It’s possible that a Buddhist might know something that’s truly different from what a Christian knows and they might be complimentary rather than contradictory. ”

“I think everything is interconnected. That’s part of my Buddhism.”

When asked by a student whether he believed that Jesus was “the way, the truth, and the life,” McDaniel stated that if Jesus had meant to say that He himself was the way, the truth, and the life, it would have been egocentric and arrogant of Jesus – He only meant to point people in the right direction – letting go of ego and grasping love. McDaniel stated also that Buddhist mindfulness (eastern meditation) is just as truth filled as doctrine and theology. He said there was an overemphasis in the church on doctrine calling it bibliolatry (idol worship of the Bible).

*The date that the NNU lecture with Dr. Jay McDaniel took place is October 12, 2006. Because the Nazarene universities are continuing to move in the same direction (toward the new mystical spirituality) as they were then, we believe it is appropriate to post this video now.

But, back to Ms. Lee, please don't think she only has info that Buddhists will roast for eternity...check out her diagnosis on right-wing Catholic and Focus on the Family contributor Dr. J. Budziszewski. More interesting, in a look at the horrible car accident kind of way, is her actual exchange with Budziszewski...:

One of your blog posts quotes statements, from another website, about my book How to Stay Christian in College. Unfortunately, the quoted paragraph contains several misleading distortions. Before they go viral, allow me to correct them. Thank you for the opportunity.

1. “The book has references in the back of some editions to mystic emergent Tony Jones.” I have never read the works of Mr. Jones, have no idea what they are about, and have certainly never referred to them. Authors have no control over advertisements placed in the backs of their books by the publishers.

2. “Budziszewski himself is a proponent of contemplative prayer practices.” The term “contemplation” can mean many things, but the author means New Age mental practices, which I have consistently opposed. I have never encouraged Christians to work themselves up into altered states of consciousness.

Comment by J Budziszewski | January 6, 2010
#

Mr. J. Budziszewski,

You are a Catholic according to this website: http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/jbudziszewski_int1_feb05.asp Catholics are mystics who worship demons—false saints, verified by Wikipedia, Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic websites, etc. God declares all idols are of demons. True Christians must not partake in the worship of idols and idolaters are kept out of heaven. Mysticism is forbidden throughout God’s inerrant Word, the Bible.

Are the statements below true?

http://forums.carm.org/v/showthread.php?p=5630584

“Susan made a quick call to Lighthouse Trails and asked what we knew about this author. We had not heard of him, but quickly learned that J. Budziszewski (pronounced Boo-jee-shef-ski) was an author and professor who had converted in 2004 from Protestantism to Catholicism We also learned he was a proponent of contemplative practices. He is a featured professor on contemplative-promoting Focus on the Family’s TrueU.org online university, telling students to practice lectio divina as a form of meditation…”

“It seemed quite ironic that someone who had left the Christian faith to follow contemplative Catholicism wrote a book to instruct high school students how to remain Christian while in college, when he had converted away from evangelical Christianity. And knowing that a Calvary Chapel high school was using this book was troubling. Interestingly, the first person Budziszewski quotes in How to Stay Christian in College is Lutheran-turned-Catholic priest, the late Richard John Neuhaus, who many would consider a friend in the emergent/Catholic conversation…”

Comment by Val Lee | January 7, 2010
#

Dear Mrs. Lee, I made two corrections: First, I do not promote New Age practices — in fact I oppose them. Second, I did not “reference” the works of the other author whom the article mentioned — I don’t even know who he is. The correction of these errors is my only purpose in writing to you. I am sorry that you are so misinformed about what Catholics believe, but I do not wish to be drawn into an argument with you about that. I recommend that Scripture be read in the spirit of prayer. Don’t you? Assuming that you allow the post, this will be my final comment. Peace be with you.

Comment by J Budziszewski | January 7, 2010
#

Now,Dr. Budziszewski maybe reaping a wee bit o' what he's sowin' but regardless, there's certain words, emotions and sentiments missing from Ms. Lee's writings that highlight the nicer parts of Christianity. And that's all I'll say for now.

Are "New Atheists" Fundamentalists?

A comment on my recent post on the religious right says that Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers and Sam Harris "do an awful lot to propel their brand of fundamentalism to new heights" implying that their "fundamentalism" is akin to a "different flavor" of the fundamentalism offered by religious textual literalists.

Is that true? Are these gentlemen fundamentalists? And if so, in what sense? And if they are in a certain sense, is that a bad thing?

Well, Dawkins at least has addressed this in his book The God Delusion, and I won't repeat what he says there in this post, nor will I repeat whatever other critics have said (a sampling can be found at links on Wikipedia).

I will however, quote a dictionary definition of fundamentalism:

1. religious beliefs based on a literal interpretation of the Bible, regarded as fundamental to Christian faith and morals
2. the 20th-cent. movement among some American Protestants, based on these beliefs
3. a strict adherence to or interpretation of a doctrine, set of principles, etc., as of a social, legal, political, or religious group or system

Now by the 3rd definition everyone who adheres to a strict adherence of a set of principles of a religious group might be called a fundamentalist. I would admit atheism as a religious group despite what some muddled conservatives might say (especially being ignorant of certain religions that do not admit the existence of deities).

But, as an example, let's take Dawkins. Dawkins is an avowed atheist, but what he means by that is that the evidence that we as humans can observe is so overwhelmingly against the possibility of a deity as to lead one to conclude that one does not exist. If, there were evidence revealed to the contrary, he would have changed his opinion. Ideologically he expresses kinship with Bertrand Russell, who, when asked what he would say when he died and a hypothetical deity asked why he did not profess belief would say, "Not enough evidence."

As a counter example, there are fundamentalist creationists aplenty who, when presented with the evidence of dinosaurs, distant galaxies, and what-not that clearly demonstrate the existence of an earth and universe billions of years old engage in all kinds of special pleading to try to wiggle out of the obvious evidence. This includes, but is not limited to:

• The dinosaurs were placed there by god to make us have faith or "test" our faith because it contradicts the bible!
• The laws of physics were different 5,000 years ago! (I believe I heard this one from a Catholic who should know better.)
• And the granddaddy of all special pleading apologetics arguments, Tertullian's "I believe because it is absurd." (Well then you believe, uh, pretty much everything absurd?)

Our lives are permeated by feeling, emotion, passion and the like, but if we are trying to talk about the Big Things, (Why are we here? What should I do? God? Death? Immortality? Ethics?) we should try to employ reason. As a Buddhist, I try to do this, and where any Buddhism contradicts what can be observed, measured, and logically discussed, we should be wary. True, logical systems come with limitations, and our choice of axioms dictates how our reasoning goes. But - I've got to appeal to my professional deformation here - we should choose our axioms based on their utility to achieve our ends, and as a general rule the fewer the better as long as they have sufficient utility.

Of course the diatribes against the "New Atheists" are by and large done as a defense against the beliefs of those who criticize them (although I think most reasonable people might say, on reflection that "New" is superfluous here and so that criticism should stand).

But stop the tu quoque arguments when you discuss these people. They aren't true.

Not Dead Yet: The Religious Right

Brad Warner takes the opportunity to take Pat Robertson's recent cynical and absurd remarks over Haiti (something to do with Satan) to proclaim that the religious right "ain't nothin." At the moment that's more or less true, but I'd like to expand a bit on a comment I made at his blog.

Here's some points to consider, Brad:

1. Follow the Money
Pat Robertson made this remark no doubt because he knows damned well that his audience is not well informed. I mean, his contributors give money to his organization and he likely takes a cut, and profitted mightily from his relious TV business. And he's making sure the gravy train continues for his offspring. How much is Robertson worth? Hundreds of millions of dollars. So, Brad? Pat Robertson wasn't talking to you. The religious right might be dead to you, but I assure you it's not dead to the Tea Party movement and I'll have a blog post on that in the near future - I'm hoping it's a "scoop" as they say.

2. Memes: The Nasty One is Dormant
Brad, ever hear of the concept of a meme? It's like an "idea virus," and it can be said to respond to evolutionary pressures. Some memes are good memes and some seem to be quite harmful. It's TBD as to why, other than strict evolutionary baggage, a "Kumbaya" meme hasn't emerged as virulent as an SS Stormtrooper meme, and how come when cynical people try to create a Kumbaya meme, they wind up creating Up with People.

But I digress.

Virulent memes can be like virulent viruses; an ancestor of the current H1N1 virus was the one that killed tens to hundreds of millions in 1918-1919, and they can crowd out healthier memes in the same way as E. coli can give you some bad intestinal effects at the expense of the healthy bacteria that abide in your gut.

So it is with the religious right. Although Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and all the creationist guys are highly marginalized, they are still clawing for a comeback in Texas through the schools, and they still have a ridiculously disparate influence in Washington due to "The Family", and they have infiltrated the US military in ways that are detrimental to unit cohesion and readiness (Google "Military Religious Freedom Foundation."

Yes, Brad, Falwell's dead, gays are coldly tolerated outside of Texas, and even medical marijuana's legal. But, in the world of Christian fundamentalists and "evangelicals," and theocrats, Sarah Palin is a martyr. And a hockey mom with lipstick.

And the meme which is relatively dormant right now could emerge more virulent than ever because cynical folks like Pat Robertson and Brit Hume will act in the spirit of IGMFU. (Trivial digression: Christoper Plummer - one of the most highly underrated actors of my lifetime - patterned his performance of a cynical minister in 1987's "Dragnet" after Pat Robertson. I haven't seen it written down anywhere, but just watch the freakin' movie! And get out your goat leggings.)

3. Liberty Requires Vigilance
PZ Myers, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, the ACLU, the Human Rights Campaign, Larry Flynt, the guys at talk2action, the folks who brought talkorigns.org to life, Stanton Peele and lawyers acting on the basis of his work, the internet infidels, and countless others and contributors, and demonstrators and political activists pushed the religious right to its current state. But by no means is it permanently rendered harmless. Impermance will dictate, of course, but the only way to prevent a disaster of our negligence and laziness later is to be aware and dilligent now and in the future.

Ross Douthat wants to talk about faith

And I thought the Tiger Woods/Brit Hume flap was old news. But I was wrong. Even the Zennist had to get in a quote of James epistle yesterday; in any case I will try to make this my last post anywhere near the subject. Though it's more about Ross Douthat, I'd say than Woods.

...If you treat your faith like a hothouse flower, too vulnerable to survive in the crass world of public disputation, then you ensure that nobody will take it seriously. The idea that religion is too mysterious, too complicated or too personal to be debated on cable television just ensures that it never gets debated at all.

Agreed. So Ross Douthat, any time you want to have a public discussion of Buddhism verus Christianity, please let me know. I have no degree in theology, I am pretty much as you are, except for the 12 years of religious Christian education, I am self-educated in both Christianity and Buddhism, as well as philosphy in general.

So, let's talk...

This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse.

Well, what is religious bigotry if not prejudging another religion?

Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sins. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s Someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors never do.

Except that if you understand Buddhism, and if you are practicing Buddhism, you are practicing under the assumption that there's no need for forgiveness from any outside entity. The wronging and wronged parties are themselves wronged and wronging and hurting, and it's the hurt and suffering and general dukkha that needs to be addressed.

Or maybe not. For many people — Woods perhaps included — the fact that Buddhism promotes an ethical life without recourse to Christian concepts like the Fall of Man, divine judgment and damnation is precisely what makes it so appealing. The knee-jerk outrage that greeted Hume’s remarks buried intelligent responses from Buddhists, who made arguments along these lines — explaining their faith, contrasting it with Christianity, and describing how a lost soul like Woods might use Buddhist concepts to climb from darkness into light.

Give the man some credit, although the "appeal" of Buddhism is not that it's "not Christianty," but rather because it works. But kudos to Douthat for acknowledging that Buddhists have a response at all.

I am happy to say that I actually agree with Douthat largely in his sentiments, even if his specifics seemed to be still uninformed by Buddhism. But it's way better than what I've read from other Christians on this issue.

Yes, let's have the debate. But let's have an informed debate.

The Guardian's comment section goes where I was going

Buddhism beats depression...

A report I wrote for the Mental Health Foundation highlights the impressive clinical evidence for an approach called mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) – the eight-week courses have been shown to reduce relapse rates by half among people who have suffered several episodes of depression. The report also finds that very few patients who could benefit from mindfulness training are currently being referred for the treatment – just one in 20 GPs prescribes MBCT regularly, despite the fact that nearly three-quarters of doctors think it would be helpful for their patients with mental health problems. Changing that could make a massive difference not only to them, but to the economy – the cost of depression to the UK has been estimated at £7.5 billion every year.
Despite its convoluted name, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is pretty straightforward – a set of classes that teach meditation practices which help people pay attention to their breathing, body sensations, thoughts and feelings in a kind, accepting, non-judgemental way. Mindfulness training shows us how to notice and work with our experience rather than engaging in a futile struggle to fight or run away from it. That may sound simple – perhaps because it is – but developing this mindful way of relating seems to alleviate some of the suffering that struggling with life's pain creates.
Mindfulness is especially relevant to depression, in which sufferers tend to get caught up with cycles of 'rumination' - when people get depressed they churn negative thoughts over and over in their minds, a pattern which actually perpetuates their low mood. Mindfulness short-circuits rumination – by learning how to pay attention to our present moment experience, rather than getting tied up in negative thinking about the past or future, we create more space in our minds from which new, more effective decision-making can emerge. It isn't a miracle cure – while simple, the techniques take time and effort to master, but mindfulness-based therapies are now supported by a substantial and rapidly-growing evidence base that suggest they can help people cope better not just with depression, but also with the stress of conditions ranging from chronic pain and anxiety to cancer and HIV.
Mindfulness-based therapies are fundamentally and unapologetically inspired by Buddhist principles and tools – the Buddha both noted that suffering (as opposed to pain) is created by struggling with experience and prescribed mindfulness meditation as a way of working with it skilfully. However, the B-word rarely, if ever, gets a mention on MBCT courses – their reputation in health services has been built on scientific evidence rather than spiritual conviction. This is the only way it could be – while some of us Buddhists might argue that practising mindfulness can open up insights about the nature of mind that go way beyond what can be measured in a randomised-controlled trial, the most important thing here is that techniques which reduce suffering are presented in whatever way will make them most accessible to the largest number of people.

So, while I may have oversold CBT in the post below, my point stands. Today it turns out that Barbara O'Brien's been smeared by the Family Research Council. Her repsonse on the Tiger Woods/Brit Hume/Buddhsim affiar was distorted by one Peter Sprigg.

Apparently, Hume’s apologetics require an apology not just because he violated the well-known constitutional principle of the separation of church and television (?), but because he expressed his heretical disbelief in the scientific theory that all religions are equally valuable and effective.

Odd, Buddhists have had effective techniques for combatting things like depression and phobias for millenia, and Christianity...or should I say Western culture, had to invent the field before they could reach out to Buddhism for methods relating to the cure!

Now I don't like playing my religion's better than yours, especially since Christianity is a relatively easy target, what with the sort-of filicide as a quid pro quo for wrongs presumably made against a Semitic tribal god and what-not. But let's face it, when it comes to efficacy, ...

Anyhow, here's a comment I left on the FRC post (and Barbara O'Brien's blog). Let's see if the FRC has the courage to post it on their blog:

The title of that article was “Persecution for the Brit Hume Witness.” yet I read of no lion ripping anyone to shreds, nor did I read of any beheadings, flayings, amputations, vandalism or buildings being burnt.

As far as the “effectiveness” of religions, I’ve alluded to that on my blog in the past couple of days: would Hume accept a “mindfulness” based therapy to help him deal with the grief over his son’s suicide, if it were known to him to be “Buddhist” – like?

P.S., Read and understand what Barbara says about reincarnation and Buddhism, dear Christians, before you write something that makes you look worse than foolish.

Brit Hume, Gateway Pundit, and Others Should Try Buddhism

I had only noted in passing the other day about the Brit Hume bit. Given the extent that it made a splash in my corner of the blogosphere, and given the vitriolic reactions from some righties in response to the insouciance received from Hume's advice to Tiger Woods is to abandon Buddhism I thought a bit more discussion was in order.

Barbara O'Brien wrote a touching bit on explaining Buddhism to those who ought to know better.

Several conservatives however, have actually defended Hume's remark. The Gateway Pundit's site over at "First Things," seems to have cornered the market on vitriol and bigotry. This is the link to the first post the blogger wrote on that, and this is good enough to get the feel for the, uh, Christian love. Now to the Gateway Pundit's credit he links to a piece by David Gibson at Politics Daily (though implying that it's unfairly criticizing Mr. Hume). From Gibson's piece it is brought out that Hume became more religious after his son's suicide in 1998.

I can not conceive of the personal deformation that one must endure in the death of one's child. Such a thing is horrendous to contemplate. But of course, for such suffering Buddhism does offer a path out of that hell. To one's own suffering, perhaps, one's own path. Or not. Does Brit Hume appear as though he is not resentful? Do I in this blog? In "worse times" there was quite a bit of vitriol on this blog about the horrible directions the former regime led the country. Even now, I am extremely dissatisfied with the current administration, although it is orders of magnitude better than their predecessors. But I digress, perhaps.

Buddhists have techniques for overcoming greed, hatred, and ignorance and their derivatives, even if we aren't always skillful at using them. (The Japanese have a saying, "Even monkeys fall from trees." Perhaps monkeys have sayings too.) If you look at the comments in the post I referenced from the Gateway Pundit, you'll find many commenters seething with resentment, with very few self-avowed Christians willing to actually go near the fact that Hume's remark was profoundly ignorant of Buddhism.

That brings me to my last point. It would be very good, I think, for these commenters and pundits to actually investigate Buddhism, so that they would not make such ill-informed statements at the very least. In the 1893 Parliament of World Religions in Chicago, Buddhists from Japan attended, even though the prevailing attitude there was Christian triumphalism. Teachers such as Soen Shaku and D. T. Suzuki ably presented the Buddhist case and more. And yet, the anti-Buddhist bigotry on the part of Christians persisted, and in 1896 Soen Shaku responded to a particular bit of bigotry reminiscent of Hume's uninformed remarks. Soen Shaku's remarks are telling, in that he makes a cogent case that Jesus Christ wasn't exactly a moral paragon for Buddhists:

We may grant that Jesus Christ is the greatest master and teacher that appeared in the West after Buddha, but the picture of Jesus Christ as we find it in the Gospel is marred by the accounts of such miracles as the great draft of fishes, which involves a great and useless destruction of life (for we read that the fishermen followed Jesus, leaving the fish behind), and by the transformation of water into wine at the marriage-feast at Cana. Nor has Jesus Christ attained to the calmness and dignity of Buddha, for the passion of anger.

Now truth be told, I haven't attained the calmness and dignity of the Buddha, but that's my goal at least. It does seem to me that too many of the self-avowed followers of Christ tend to emulate his lack of anger management. So in the spirit of Mr. Hume recommending what he claimed helped him, I would humbly suggest to these gentlemen and others what worked for me is the practice of Buddhism, the recognition that life is suffering, that there is a cause and a way out of suffering, and that by following the Eightfold Path one can transcend suffering.

True, I don't have Hume's megaphone, and ultimately I'm just a guy still trying to transcend much suffering and ignorance myself, but at least I recognize the need to quench resentments, and sometimes have some success.

The Pope ©???

When the Catholic church starts to incorporate intellectual property law into its practices you know they're just adding one more problem to the mountain of problems they already have.

Among them, entirely new things about which to be ignorant!

The Vatican made a declaration on the protection of the figure of the Pope on Saturday morning. The statement seeks to establish and safeguard the name, image and any symbols of the Pope as being expressly for official use of the Holy See unless otherwise authorized.

The statement cited a "great increase of affection and esteem for the person of the Holy Father" in recent years as contributing to a desire to use the Pontiff's name for all manner of educational and cultural institutions, civic groups and foundations.

Due to this demand, the Vatican has felt it necessary to declare that "it alone has the right to ensure the respect due to the Successors of Peter, and therefore, to protect the figure and personal identity of the Pope from the unauthorized use of his name and/or the papal coat of arms for ends and activities which have little or nothing to do with the Catholic Church."

The declaration alludes to attempts to use ecclesiastical or pontifical symbols and logos to "attribute credibility and authority to initiatives" as another reason to establish their “copyright” on the Holy Father's name, picture and coat of arms.

Not only have they now put their institution on a par with Scientology, but they have opened themselves up to parody and ridicule, which (ask any lawyer; I'm not a lawyer) is immune to assertions such as the above.

Brilliant move, fellas.  And it just gave PZ Myers another way to figuratively flip the bird at these folk.