The wages of sin, the consequences of karma

The concepts of sin and karma are very complex and often times complex concepts become reduced to a simplification of a single aspect of their nature, which makes some people uncomfortable with the term. Some theists say sin is disobedience to or separation from God, but this depends on how we understand God. What does a connection with or following God mean? I have written about my views on this numerous times, but it boils down to everything being sacred. Sin isn't just about list of naughty behaviors and hoping some Big Guy in the Sky doesn't catch us and punish us for being bad, it about choosing a lesser life. It is seeing God as the source and substance of reality; sin in that sense is delusion, a failure to appreciate or accept our fundamental interdependence with all phenomena and seeing ourselves at intrinsic and autonomous beings of primary or exclusive value. This selfishness keeps us from actualizing our full potential, short-selling ourselves and cheating others who might have benefited from our lives.

Karma is refers to cause and effect and the fact that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions. The seeds we plant will sprout and grow when they meet the right conditions in our lives. If we have sewn the seeds of suffering and we react poorly to the activation of those seeds, we simply sew additional seeds for the future. It's like telling off a judge at your sentencing. You are just making things unnecessarily hard on yourself. This line of thought isn't irrelevant to the concept of sin. In fact, it reveals an often overlooked aspect of the nuance of the concept and reality of sin. While it is an ancient idea, it is often overlooked. We refer to this aspect of sin its social dimension.

The personal dimension tends to receive most of the emphasis, especially in Protestant Christianity. It focused on the consequences of a person's choices on that person and those immediately affected. Some say (and I agree) that sin contains its own punishment for the sinner, and I agree. Even if someone doesn't realize they are hurting themselves. And it may have consequences for a proximate victim. That is why we have punitive laws - to discourage the harming of others. But what about the social dimension? It refers to the fact that we are responsible for each other. So it isn't just the fault of the person committing a harmful or destructive act, it is also the fault of those who allowed that person to get so far-gone that they would behave in such a fashion. Both the personal and social dimensions are important for acts that hurt others, but what about those that we think only hurt the sinner?

The answer is -- there is no such thing.

Again, the idea that we can sin in a way that only harms ourselves comes from the preoccupation with the self. But the social dimension of sin is larger than that. It also includes what we could have thought, said, or done but failed to think, say, or do. What would we think if a firefighter sat by while a family perished in a burning home? What would we think if a social worker ignored a pregnant mother who was trying to apply for assistance to get out of a bad neighborhood? How about an employer not hiring any employees at all for an empty factory in town with many qualified candidates but few jobs. Or someone who could save or greatly improve the lives of thousands or millions withholding an idea or invention? Are these individuals not responsible for those they failed to help?

What if someone couldn't volunteer as a firefighter because he had a drug history? What if someone didn't become a social worker because she committed suicide? What if someone never started a successful business because she couldn't get investors because of years of frivolous spending and defaulting on payments? What if someone never invented a revolutionary way to cheaply and simply purify any kind of water anywhere because they just decided to drink their life away? Aren't these supposed to be personal sins? Other than friends or family, who else is really affected? Isn't it their own business? Isn't it their life to do with what they will? Or what they won't?

Yes, it is a choice. They are free to make it. But their are consequences. What if the family perishing in the fire caused a distraught and distracted relative to fail at a safety inspection, allowing a major disaster? What of the child of the pregnant mother could have found the key to curing cancer? What if the poverty of the families in that town doomed their children to lives of hardship? What if the water purifier would have brought peace and stability to certain parts of the world and prevented conflicts over access to potable water? Even if these people wouldn't have gone on to some grand future, they are still human being who suffered or perished because of the "personal choices" and "private sins" of others. Just as Clarence explains to George after granting George's wish for a world in which he had never been born in a pivotal scene from "It's a Wonderful Life":

Clarence: Your brother, Harry Bailey, broke through the ice and was drowned at the age of nine.

George: That's a lie! Harry Bailey went to war! He got the Congressional Medal of Honor! He saved the lives of every man on that transport.

Clarence: Every man on that transport died! Harry wasn't there to save them, because you weren't there to save Harry.

How many have suffered or died, are suffering and dying, or will suffer and die as a result of our selfish delusions, our hatred (born when reality doesn't match our desires), or our greed? How many people might I have touched, directly or indirectly, because of the smallest of gestures, the most modest of words, or the simplest of ideas? What about you? Don't settle for that lesser life, no matter how successful or unsuccessful you are according to conventional standards. May we all live lives worthy of ourselves and each other.

Humanity's truest nature: Milwaukee neighborhood rescues family from burning car

You may have seen or heard about a cartoon in which two people are talking and one suggests he wants to ask God why God doesn't do anything about the suffering in the world. His friend inquires why he doesn't ask, and the man states that he is afraid God will reply by asking him the same question. Some people want to separate prayer and action as mutually exclusive options and activities. Others get ticked off when God is thanked only for what appear to be favorable events from the perspective of the praise givers or when God is seen as getting credit that belongs to people. But if, as major elements of various sacred traditions suggest, (objective) reality is sacred and evil is the consequence of choosing a selfish delusion over a generous reality, if we are a part of this sacred continuum, and if we are then the hands and feet of the Divine, such errors and objections on the parts of the religious and non-religious fall away. Real theology, or theology of the most value or substance, doesn't revolve around philosophy, logic, or how to name or describe God. It is a lived experience reflected in moments such as this...

Archbishop Tutu on Craig Ferguson

As a fan of Fergusn's work on CBS's The Late Late Show and an admirer of the work of Desmond Tutu, I was pleasantly stunned when I checked my recordings (it's the only way I have time to keep up with anything on television) and found that Tutu was a guest this week on Ferguson's show. Ferguson has relaxed confessional atmosphere on his program, so he is able to seriously entertain such a guest without the sense of pretense or a noticeable change in tone or approach. Ferguson was nominated for an Emmy for The Late Late Show in 1996 and one would think episodes like this will earn him additional attention from the critics. CBS hasn't released the full episode on the show's webpage, and the videos that are showing up elsewhere only capture bits and pieces of this wonderful dialogue. If and when the full episode is made available I will post a link here. Listen for the laughter! :)

UPDATE: Here is the link - CLICK HERE.

Transformation and Divine Love

Type rest of the post here

Is change coming to the relationship of morality and politics?

What do you think?

I recently saw part of a program where someone was claiming that abortion was a moral evil requiring resolute action, which amounted solely to banning the procedure, but fighting poverty and providing affordable health care to pregnant women was not as urgent. Those things were a matter of private conscience, and you could be a "good Christian" even if you had various opinions and attitudes about those issues. Even though poverty and health concerns drive many women to consider abortion whether it is legal or not.

So extreme and debilitating material and psychological poverty then aren't major moral evils to be fought will all due concern and effort, but the consequences, including higher rates of violent crime, drug use, abortion, etc - they are, of course, and we must step up the fight. That's why I think Obama's position, for example, of trying to reduce or eliminate the factors that tend lead to abortions should be a priority. I don't see why everyone can't support that whether or not they want abortions to be legal or illegal.

As an additional note, this highlights the problem with focusing ethical and moral considerations either solely or even heavily primarily to either the social or to the individual. We do not exist in a vacuum and we are responsible for the atmosphere we create and the influences we exert, either intentionally or apathetically. Yet even so each of us has a personal choice in how to respond to these conditions. To over-emphasize either of these is a cop out and ignores the reality in which moral choices are made.

The same is also true for any system, religious, social, political, etc, in which moral choices are not made available or accessible - when people are essentially required to choose among immoral options. This is every bit as destructive as a narcissistic hedonist who always chooses their own pain and pleasure as their motivator above the welfare of anyone else. Some just want to deal with the system actively facilitating or promoting the "sin", others just with the would-be "sinner". I can't see how to separate the two - they are both reflections of each other, different expressions of the same flaw.

Arming the Saffron Revolution

What do you think of the idea of Burmese monks arming themselves and fighting a pitched battle against the ruling military junta? In a recent article from the Christian Science Monitor, "Monks with guns? Burma's younger activists get bolder", Anand Gopal writes that this is what a segment of younger Burmese monks are advocating in response to last year's crackdown in which dozens of peaceful protesters were killed and several hundred were detained or imprisoned. In response to a reposting of this article at The Buddhist Channel, Jeff Wilson wrote a reflection, "Monks with Guns?", at the Tricycle Editors Blog. His piece isn't a justification for these monk's to take up arms but it does offer an interesting historical context for this unfolding story. Many of the opinions expressed over this topic insist in absolute and no uncertain terms that these monks are wrong, that they don't follow the true Dharma, that the wisdom and compassion of the Buddha does not ever allow for violence. But is whether the monks are acting in what outsiders would an acceptably Buddhist fashion the issue of importance here, or is it the validity of the Buddha's teachings on such matters and the potential consequences of an armed monastic resistance for the people of Burma?

I wonder at times about the price of advocating non-violence at any cost when the advocates themselves live in an open and wealthy society and are more often than not in the ethnic majority. I am not suggesting insincerity on the part of such people - we can be just as dedicated to our values as the disenfranchised minorities - but I find it hard to personally judge or condemn the attitudes of these frustrated and grieving monks without having experienced the kind of inhuman brutality and disregard for life that some of them have witnessed their entire lives and which peaked one year ago. I am not being beaten and jailed, nor are my friends and family. I haven't suffered under that system my whole life, watching injustice after injustice. I can sign a petition, watch Jim Carrey or other celebrities plead for me to get involved, and then get up from the computer and go to bed without fear that government spies may have given up my location or that I will be abducted in the middle of the night by the police.

When it comes to topics such as abortion and other sensitive issues many Western-raised Buddhists, particularly those who feel they are on the correct side of an issue, are quick to emphasize the situation by situation angle for ethical judgments in Buddhism rather than a rigid code of moralistic prescriptions of "Thou shalts..." and "Thou shalt nots..." Don't try to paint us with your black and white brush. The world isn't like that! Is this really so different? Or do we just presume somehow that we know better and can tell when to apply one standard and when to apply another? I am not advocating or condoning violence by anyone, including these monks. I am not arguing on their behalf for you to support the idea of arming the Saffron Revolution. But I do get concerned sometimes by how we all can get so good at hearing and applying the Dharma in way that suits our own preferences.

Buddhist or no, this kind of judgment can mutate into a form of politically-fueled ethnocentrism, the gauging of one culture or society from the perspective or standards of another. Should we be more concerned about judging the "Buddhist-ness" of the monks who are expressing their despair and outrage or would our energy be better directed at campaigning, through educating the public and our elected officials, for a realistic and substantial approach to improving conditions on the ground for the people of Burma? And would the real tragedy be a violation of Buddhist beliefs or an even more vicious response against the monks and their supporters by the military government? If the monks do decide to arm themselves, will it be their "failure" alone, or will those of us sitting comfortably on the other side world, who failed to take action toward providing an alternative - a reason to hope - have some sense of responsibility? Interdependence in cause and effect. Isn't that another important Buddhist teaching?

US CAMPAIGN FOR BURMA

Can Buddhist phenomenology effectively sort the abortion issue?

James Ure of The Buddhist Blog has written about his personal views concerning abortion with the caveat that he is not representing any particular Buddhist tradition, school, or sect. Instead he wishes to use his understanding of Buddhism to discuss and justify his positions on the issue. You are encouraged to go and read his thoughts along these lines because he has put quite a bit of effort into it, yet you will not find a set of point by point counterarguments here. While I do reference his writing, it is not to try to contradict him or critique every single thing he says point by point. Instead his post raises the question about the ultimate utility of such an approach. What does it really offer and what can we do with it?

For starters, James acknowledges that those opposed to abortion point to Buddhist writings condemning the act. He politely points out that some texts which are attributed to the Buddha may in fact have been written by other monks, so he wishes to apply the Buddha's more widely accepted principles (including a model of skeptical inquiry based on the Kalama Sutra). James seems confident that the advice to the Kalama people was a historical event and that it is a sensible model. At this point you might wonder how much of the Buddha's teachings were recorded in his own lifetime. The answer is - none. They were written down during a council of his disciples and students that met after his death. Other teachings, often in sutra form, have been produced hundreds of years after the death of Siddhartha Gautama. For the sake of legitimacy, these were frequently authenticated as oral teachings which had been previously untranscribed. Others attribute them to the development of the understanding of the Buddha's teachings by later Buddhist communities. Neither of these explanations automatically make what is said in these sutras right or wrong. This in turn means that even if the Buddhist writings opposing abortion are not the original words of the Buddha, they may still be consistent with the spirit of his message (as some would say these authors may have been touching the Buddha's "Dharma Body"). James does not provide the details of these writings or there arguments, so we are unable to assess them ourselves.

Next, James candidly points out that he "follow[s] the sutras in many cases, I also use my meditations, scholarly works, mind-set, values instilled by my family, pondering and personal reasoning to come to that direct knowledge of what I believe to be 'truth.' " There is nothing here to criticize, but it is important to note that everything after "meditations" is a product of societal and personal history and the corresponding cultural values attached to such influences. One must be cautious in this regard because it tends to lead even the most fair-minded person, often subconsciously, to a biased selection of evidence in addition to coloring the interpretation of said evidence. Often we have some gut reaction about what we want to believe and then find logical reasons and evidence to construct a justification for that position. It also means someone in good faith could go through the total available evidence and use the same tools as James does to come to a different conclusion about the moral and ethical implications of abortion.

For example, James focuses on the debate of how he thinks Buddhism defines life. To clarify, it is presumed he means sentient life. I make this clarification because many living things do not possess all of the features he mentions. It should also be clarified that the question of when life begins, which generally follows the question of what "counts" as life in the abortion debate, is also inaccurate. According to the best current estimates of paleontologists, life on Earth began roughly 3.5 billion years ago, and every living thing on the planet is a part of that same unbroken chain of reproduction. All the life on Earth now is simply a continuation of the life that came into existence then. What people really mean is "When does an immature individual human organism become a person?" A person is a (typically biological) individual whom society formally recognizes with the granting of rights. Normally such biological individuals belong to our own species, Homo sapiens, although some folks have been fighting to get similar formal recognition and rights for non-humans primates such as chimpanzees. Getting back to abortion, the issue then is when an immature human organism should be recognized as a person.

This helps undercut some of the clutter that get into these debates. Yes, the zygote/embryo/fetus is alive. Yes it is an individual (even if you cleave the zygote they may each survive and grow up to be separate people - think identical twins). Yes it is human. Who cares if it has gill slits and a tail? That is part of the normal human life cycle. Until your late teens/early twenties you had unfused epiphyses at the ends of your long bones, but that developmental detail didn't make you less than human. These facts are not in dispute on whichever side of the debate you may personally land. In acknowledging this we can get back to the central question - when and how does an living human organism get to be recognized as a person? This issue of personhood underlies many of the major abortion debates as those familiar with the arguments will know. But it also drives us to a more scrupulous assessment of when and how personhood is granted, because as you and I and a human embryo growing in the womb are all living human organisms. If we are going to set standards for who has rights and who does not we must be careful we don't hang ourselves by our own arguments.

This brings us back to the assessment James makes using the notion of Skandas, or the aggregates to which a living sentient being can be reduced. These traditionally include form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. For example James points out that at certain stages embryos lack the form (biological structures) necessary for the five traditional senses, including physical pain. At different stages an embryo or fetus may not yet have the capacity for perception or mental formations (basic thoughts and feelings), let alone full consciousness. So he arranges his schedule of when he believes abortions should be permitted or not according to how well the immature organism places on a Skanda scale. Thus he writes:

In conclusion, I have submitted in this essay that an embryo (which is the potential human being) during the first trimester does not meet the requirements of all five skandha/aggregates and is therefore persmissable to believe in first trimester abortion as a Buddhist. I do not, however, agree with late term abortions except if the life of the mother is in jeopardy.

So I am for abortion during the first trimester and only for abortion in the second trimester in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is at risk.

Again, the point here isn't to discredit James' opinion, so we instead can ask - "Are there other situations in which a human organism other than a zygote/embryo/fetus may not be deserving of personhood by such criteria?" If there are, then while his effort gets us closer to an answer, James' position is not complete. For example, some humans are born without one or more (fully) functioning sense organs. Others may acquire such a lack of perception later in life due to illness or injury. Similarly, some may lack the cognitive development and corresponding capacity to process certain perceptual information, or to develop and contemplate sophisticated mental formations. Others may slip into a coma which may include a lack of consciousness. What about them? And is a human organism in a coma not a person if they have healthy neural tissue and a chance to wake up? What about someone in a persistent vegetative state?

This line of thought can then permute in many directions and lead to debates over whether the potential to develop is relevant, the effect of giving something a name, whether or not other criteria can (and should) be used to distinguish human organisms that are still in the womb from those which are not, including the degree of dependence of an individual on some external life support such the mother's body (and whether this is comparable to other supports such as iron lung). These arguments are outside of the scope of the present phenomenological analysis, but they are not necessarily outside of the realm of Buddhist metaphysics. Perhaps they point to fruitful areas of analysis for future contemplation. But they also hint at other more practical questions - is a solid argument for or against abortion based on Buddhism even possible and if one existed, would it really influence those Buddhists who are committed to or opposed to abortion rights?

The larger moral questions provoked by the Knoxville church shooting

Right now, I still believe that the focus concerning the church shooting in Knoxville should remain on the human, rather than the political. There are many websites and organizations pouring out love and sympathy for those affected by this tragedy...

The words "The sun'll come out tomorrow - bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow there'll be sun!" rang through Second Presbyterian Church sanctuary. Children and adults wiped tears, hugged and blew out candles lit minutes earlier at a vigil held in the wake of the Sunday morning shooting at neighboring Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church.

Members of both churches, which stand adjacent on Kingston Pike, attended. Also attending were Westside Unitarian Universalist Church members. Members of that church also were shot Sunday. But the sanctuary pews, balconies and aisles were filled with Knoxvillians from all - and sometimes of no - organized faiths. Some latecomers were soaked by a summer rainstorm; lighting flashed and thunder boomed during parts of the service. The message was one of comfort and strength in times of crisis and pain.

knoxnews.com

But there are also attacks on what are seen as the far-right roots of the shooter's hatred and agitated responses from defensive conservatives. Based on some of my own recent experiences with this, I wanted to share something to help us see one of the bigger pictures brought into relief not only by this tragedy but by the political and ideological responses it has provoked.

If you read the collected reports in the Knoxville papers the evidence collected, from eye witness accounts of the attack to the gunman's "manifesto" to interviews with neighbors and acquaintances, Adkisson strongly identifies with the many of the popular messages of radical conservatism, particularly the more intolerant ones such as "Liberals are evil", "Liberals are dangerous", "Liberals are traitors", "Liberals are more of a threat than those scary Muslim terrorists", and "Liberals should be eliminated". The evidence for that doesn't just go away because someone doesn't like it or thinks that the killer doesn't fit with their conception of what a conservative should be or because they don't want to share the same ideological label as a murderer. Liberals would feel the same way if someone who claimed to "hate the conservatives" went in tried to shoot up a politically conservative congregation. Yet it is has been noted (here and here, for example) that the description of Adkisson's four page "manifesto" recalls an extreme anti-liberal rhetoric one can hear on the radio or read in popular books and blogs.

There are at least two forms of naive oversimplifying that can occur when discussing the revelation that Jim D. Adkisson, the gunman who assaulted a Unitarian-Universalist congregation, owned books by conservative talk-show hosts and attributed his violence to a hatred of liberals. One form of naivety is thinking that the shooter was simply following verbatim the instructions written in the books containing anti-liberal sentiments found at his home, the other is to assume that such books, corresponding comments on talk-radio and the internet, etc had absolutely nothing to do with what happened. I can understand the desire on the part of those who consider themselves to be conservative to do this in this particular case, it is a mistake.

The fact is that just because one doesn't "blame" conservatism or all conservatives for what happened in Knoxville DOES NOT mean that we shouldn't seriously consider to what degree the social/political climate contributed to this tragedy. And this is not an attack on conservatism, nor a defense of liberalism. I believe this can be a problem for religious folks and non-religious, theists and atheists, etc. So please bear with me through the whole thing.

Consider a different context for a moment other than conservatism. Imagine a situation in a community where some folks start making racist jokes to those they think will appreciate them. Some don't think they are funny but say nothing. Others chuckle a bit. So some of the jokers start making even more hardcore jokes, including ones involving suggestions of violence. No one stands up to it, even those who aren't as comfortable with the new harsher tone. Some ignore the jokes or only laugh at the lighter ones, but a growing hardcore is really into it.

So now we have an atmosphere that is somewhat toxic. That is, it is fairly offensive and sickening to those not used to breathing its fumes. But as this atmosphere goes relatively unchallenged, those at the sickening edge go further, inciting hatred and intolerance. Someone with a lot of frustration and rage has been soaking in these toxic fumes, which are now a poisonous cloud, for some time now and buys into the whole thing in a very concrete way. When some event happens that causes him to become unhinged and plunge over the edge, he puts this rhetoric into action.

Some folks didn't like the racism at all, but said nothing. Others thought the lighter stuff was funny, and just ignored the harder stuff. Some were secretly enjoying some the harder stuff but really didn't take a lot of it seriously. And some were just enjoying the derisiveness and how it pumped up their egos too much to care either way. Yet to some degree all of these groups contributed to an increasingly toxic atmosphere which became poisonous. And when that poisonous atmosphere came into prolonged contact with someone whose moral, emotional, mental, or other defects allowed this poison to get deep into his system, all that was needed was a spark, some stressful event, to set him off.

Now let me be clear. I am not suggesting a defense for the shooter. I am not suggesting he isn't responsible for his actions. I am guessing a psych evaluation will determine that. Nor am I suggesting by some back door that all conservatives are guilty of causing this tragedy. I realize that this subtle distinction can be confusing because it takes a broader view of the potential influences leading up to an event and includes factors which may not have directly and decisively affected the outcome. It also introduces a moral standard beyond the strict legal standard concerning liability. This can be illustrated briefly with another example I have used before.

Suppose a madman is holding some small children hostage with a machete. Two police officers were caught off guard when the incident began. One is dead and the other is bleeding to death. EMS workers can't get to the injured officer without setting off the killer, who is not providing the SWAT sharpshooters with a shot. Because of the killer's position, however, the killer cannot see you. You are next to the dead officer and have taken his firearm. You have a clear shot at the killer, who is raising his blade and getting ready to attack one of the children. In this version of the classic "Is it ever OK to kill?" hypothetical, most people would shoot the killer. I would too. Yet for me, that isn't the end of the hypothetical, because I don't think I did a morally kosher thing.

I don't believe there is a right thing in that scenario, just the lesser of two wrongs. I find this important because it keeps clear the fact that harm did come of my actions, whether or not others would find them justified or legal. There was a whole host of wrongs over many years on the part of many, both actions and inactions, which would have led to that scenario, and while the killer bears the primary responsibility, especially in the legal sense, his life didn't happen in vacuum. The moral failure didn't start when the man with the machete started hacking people, that was just its horrifying fruition. Neither did the life of the violent nut in my racism hypothetical. Neither did the life of Jim D. Adkisson.

If our lives don't occur in a vacuum, then the atmosphere to which we are exposed, be it social, political, religious, etc, cannot be ignored just because of a preference for emphasizing personal responsibility in moral and legal judgments. The two are not mutually exclusive. Is that not one of the conservative argument for not allowing gay adoption - that homosexuality is an unhealthy atmosphere for a child? Is that not the bipartisan argument for going after video game designers and producers who market games with realistic violence to kids?

Hate is not generated or sustained in a vacuum. And I don't believe it is wise to limit the scope of the discussion, in the case of the Knoxville shooter, strictly to particular talk-shows or the books by their hosts. Those are just a couple of examples of particular media echoing a particular kind of poisonous thinking that has settled over what I referred to as the radical right or radical conservatism and which is seeping into more popular conservative outlets. The fewer people who support such a toxic atmosphere, either casually or generously, the better. For those conservatives who reject it, awesome. For those who vocally criticize joking suggestions that the only way to talk to liberals is "with a baseball bat", bravo.

Which brings us back to Adkisson. Does anyone really believe his rants and tirades against the evils and dangers of liberals just came from nowhere? That the similarity, from what we know so far, of his beliefs about the specific damages he felt liberals are doing to the country and those from the far right talking points is just a coincidence? That there is no connection between the poisonous atmosphere of the radicals on the right and Adkisson's hatred of the "liberal movement"?

FYI, this is why I am against the tone of some who identify with the "new atheists". I am not concerned with their arguments, which have been widely criticized as a selective reading history coupled with a poor understanding of theology and tedious over-generalizations, but rather with the attitude (see the recent actions by PZ Meyers and a response from a member of the community Meyers set out to antagonize and offend). Their demagoguery helps push the atheist dialogue to a more disrespectful place and opens up (additional and more visible) space for potential extremists who could then create their own poisonous atmosphere of repugnant rhetoric which vilifies and scape goats religious people in the same way I fear that some conservative commentators are creating space for or in some cases echoing such rhetoric with regard to "liberals".

The same can be said of the the hateful speech on some liberal blogs, such as comments rejoicing in the Tony Snow's diagnosis of cancer as well as his death, which can also generate and sustain an offensive atmosphere that becomes poisonous. It can happen any time someone goes from criticizing or lampooning the ideas or agendas of a group targeting people who are identified with a particular label. We all need to work to clean and prevent further pollution in the public square, starting with the groups with which we ourselves have the most influence, which are generally those who tend to otherwise share our outlook and values.

Their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken

An stirring quote I read the other day attributed to Simone Weil:

"Christ does not save all those who say to Him, 'Lord, Lord.' But he saves all those who out of a pure heart give a piece of bread to a starving man, without thinking of Him in the least little bit. And these, when He thanks them, reply: 'Lord, when did we feed thee?' An atheist and an infidel, capable of pure compassion, are as close to God as is a Christian, and consequently know Him equally well, although their knowledge is expressed in other words, or remains unspoken. For 'God is love.' "

I am not familiar with the details of Weil's theology, although I've read she had a mystical interfatih bent, but I think this passage demonstrates a dimension of the concept of salvation that has been lost in the focus on the supernaturalistic legalism surrounding the obsession with the 'afterlife'.

Morality and Sexuality: Beyond Fallacy

The naturalistic fallacy assumes that what exists in nature must therefore be moral and that which does not exist in nature (i.e. that which is unnatural) is immoral. An simple example can be taken from the Black Widow spider, Latrodectus mactans, which is known to sometimes engage in (sexual) cannibalism. Just because some female Black Widows occasionally do this does not automatically make it "OK" for a women to decapitate and consume her husband after sex.

The converse is the moralistic fallacy, which is the assumption that because a particular human culture or all human cultures determine something to be immoral, it must not exist in nature. This charge was raised against those disputing the frequency and "normalcy" of infanticide by adult males in various non-human primate species. Those suggesting infanticide was primarily due to a disruption in the normal habitat and life cycle of these primates were accused of not wanting to see something they found repulsive as a normal part of the natural world. The moralistic fallacy can also be used to argue that because something is moral it must exist in nature as well as human culture, although this is used less frequently.

There are appeals taking the form of the moralistic fallacy nor the naturalistic fallacy on either side of the "Is homosexuality immoral?" debate, although not everyone on any "side" embraces the use of such fallacies. But what if we reject both?

Looking at the development of features, including behavior, we can use a continuum from mostly obligate (the feature is strongly influenced by biologically heritable influences to develop a particular way) to mostly facultative (there is a response to factors in the environment that modify the outcome of the feature being produced). We can also extend this facultative capacity or plasticity to include the social and cultural influences to which developing individuals are exposed to, giving us the classic dilemma of biological determinism (nature) versus cultural determinism (nurture) for some of the more faculative traits that may be sensitive to such influences (other facultative traits may be sensitive to other influences such as air pressure, temperature, etc). That is, we are forced to ask how much of who and what we are, including our psychology, is determined by our biology and how much by our culture for some . On the other hand, agency is the term for our capacity to operate within these influences to come up with behaviors that are not strictly determined by our biology or culture. So we have obligate versus facultative, biological determinism versus cultural determinism, and determinism (both kinds) versus agency.

Going back to the fallacies mentioned previously, some will argue that non-heterosexuality is obligate to suggest that people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, asexual, transgender, etc have no "choice" in being what they are. Since we tend to posit morality as a matter of choosing "wrong" over "right", being non-heterosexual is not immoral. And this serves as a counter to the "homosexuality is unnatural and therefore it is wrong" argument rooted in the naturalistic fallacy. It can't be unnatural, one could argue, if it is strictly biological. However, even heterosexuality is not a monolithic thing. By emphasizing only whether one is sexually attracted to members of a particular sex or gender, the appreciation diversity existing within the heterosexual community is diminished. The same is true for the non-heterosexual orientations. Not all homosexuals, for example, develop their attractions in exactly the same way. It is possible that some are mostly obligate to be gay, some are primarily biologically determined to be that way with a small dose of cultural determinism, and some may reflect a good deal of cultural determinism as well as agency. Nor is sexual orientation synonymous with gender identity conflict or gender role inversion.

So we see and hear endless arguments on the internet, talk radio, cable news, and elsewhere appealing to one of these fallacies by trying to demonstrate that sexuality is either more or less obligate or facultative, more or less culturally or biologically determined, or is more a matter of such determinism or of agency. But what happens when we eliminate arguments based on the naturalistic and moralistic fallacies?


My two cents:

If we posit that only adults are likely to have the physical, mental, and emotional maturity to safely and sensibly engage in sexual relationships, and if we value the idea that such relationships must be consenting, then we are left with the following --

Adults having consenting sex with other adults, whatever their sex, gender, or number is their own private business and they are responsible for the consequences of their choices (physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually, etc).

Pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia would be out because they fail the criteria of requiring clear consent among adults. You cannot get any consent from a corpse, you cannot get unambiguous consent from an animal, and children are not mature enough to offer consent.

As for what forms of sexuality among consenting adults people practice, it should be left up to the "free market" of idea. If you can convince people that your preferred way is safer, holier, more pleasant, etc, then fine, go ahead and do so. If you can convince someone who is a mostly-obligate homosexual to be celibate without harassment or intimidation or emotional blackmail, go ahead. If you can convince, by non-threatening argument or example, a swinging heterosexual to give up sharing his wife at the local orgy as well as also giving up the several extra women he gets to hace sex with, fine. But don't try to legislate people into submission.

Confronting injustice and suffering

It isn't simply enough to not personally participate in overt acts of injustice or to not intentionally inflict needless suffering on others. One has to be conscious of the need to actively oppose these wrongs - racism, torture, slavery, poverty, preventable illnesses, to name a few examples. I don't generally like the phrase "If you aren't part of the solution then you are a part of them problem." We are always a part of both. It's just a matter of percentages. It's just a matter of what we actively or passively condone at any given moment. Whether we are aware and try to understand each other and our problems or whether we close ourselves off. We don't need divisive slogans - we need people to stand up and inspire others by their own example. May we all seek and discover the courage and wisdom to do so every day.

The world starts to wake up to Tibet

After forty nine years, at least some momentum may be building in political and religious circles (although economic circles are still silent) regarding the situation in Tibet after decades of peaceful protests over perceived and genuine injustice and repression from Chinese rule have for many Tibetans spilled over to animated demonstrations and violent protest in the capital of their nation, a nation which the People's Republic of China claims as one of its provinces. Despite his emphasis on compassion and respect for the Chinese and the need for a peaceful resolution to the occupation of Tibet the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual and political leader of the Tibetan people, has had to watch from a distance the recent and ongoing retaliation by Chinese forces and the suppression of ethnic Tibetans in Lhasa and other areas, some of whom have taken part in violence towards the Han Chinese immigrants and their property (the Tibetans are ethnically, culturally, and linguistically a second-class minority in their own homeland). Tibetans and supporters of Tibetan political and religious liberty have also been engaging in protests around the world. In many cases they have been extremely peaceful, and in a few cases they have been given to angry displays despite the Dalai Lama's rejection of anger and violence in the name of Tibet. Here is an overview of what has been happening over the past few weeks if you aren't up to speed...

How many nobel prize winners, leading Chinese intellectuals, religious leaders, political leaders, and other prominent figures and writers are reacting to the situation in Tibet...

U.S. should speak out for Tibet, Obama says


FAYETTEVILLE, N.C., March 19 (Reuters) - The United States should speak out for human rights in Tibet, U.S. presidential contender Barack Obama said on Wednesday amid a Chinese crackdown on protests by Tibetans in China.
In a foreign policy speech, the Democratic senator from Illinois said the United States should work with countries such as Russia and China but it should also stand up for rights.
"We can start now by speaking out for the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet," Obama told an audience of military families and veterans.


March 19th, via Reuters/The Guardian

Germany Suspends Aid Talks with China Over Tibet Violence

In a fresh blow to Berlin-Beijing relations, Germany has said it is freezing aid talks with the Chinese government as a result of China's crackdown on demonstrations in Tibet.

Germany said it was suspending intergovernmental aid talks with China if the country did not end a bloody clampdown on Tibetan protestors, raising the stakes in a highly charged international conundrum over how to deal with Beijing's rights violations months before the city hosts the Olympic Games.

German Development Minister Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul said on Wednesday, March 19, that her ministry would suspend negotiations with the Chinese government which mainly involve grants to reduce air pollution by Chinese power plants.

"Violence can never be a solution," Wieczorek-Zeul said. "The two sides can only arrive at a solution through dialogue. Under such conditions, it is hardly conceivable to be conducting intergovernmental negotiations," she said.

-March 20th, via Deutche-Welle

CHINA: Under Pressure to Rethink Tibet Policy
By Antoaneta Bezlova

BEIJING, (IPS) - As continuing Tibetan protests testify to the failure of China’s policy of accelerated economic development with harsh political controls in the Himalayan region, pressure on Beijing to begin dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan leader, is growing.

Large swaths of sparsely populated Tibetan areas have been swarmed with a huge number of Chinese troops while embers of unrest continue to smoulder in the wake of the biggest protests by the Tibetan minority in twenty years.

Beijing has denounced the "splittist" Dalai Lama for masterminding the violent riots in hopes of sabotaging this summer’s Beijing Olympics and promoting Tibetan independence. But even as rhetoric against the Tibetan spiritual leader heats up, there are calls from all sides for China to recognise his undying significance to the Tibetan population and make breakthrough on a problem that does not seem to go away.

A group of 26 Nobel laureates has appealed to Beijing to resume dialogue with the Tibetan leader who has lived in exile in Dharamsala, northern India since 1959.

"We protest the unwarranted campaign waged by the Chinese government against our fellow Nobel laureate, His Holiness the Dalai Lama," the group said in a statement released by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel on Thursday.

-March 21st, via IPS

John McCain condemns Tibet crisis during France visit

US Republican presidential hopeful John McCain said today that China is harming its world image with its crackdown in Tibet and expressed hope Beijing would seek a peaceful solution to the crisis.

McCain did not discuss the issue during a 45-minute meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but told reporters later the subject was "one of the first things I would talk about if I were president of the United States today."

China's crackdown "is not correct," McCain said in the courtyard of the French presidential Elysee Palace.

"The people there are being subjected to mistreatment that is not acceptable with the conduct of a world power, which China is," McCain said in response to a question by a Chinese television journalist.

"There must be respect for human rights, and I would hope that the Chinese are actively seeking a peaceful resolution to this situation that exists which harms not only the human rights of the people there but also the image of China in the world."

-March 21st, via The Guardian

Pelosi Denounces China's Tibet Crackdown

DHARMSALA, India (AP) — House speaker Nancy Pelosi called on the world Friday to denounce China's crackdown of anti-government protests in Tibet, calling the crisis "a challenge to the conscience of the world."

Pelosi, one of the fiercest Congressional critics of China, was greeted by cheering Tibetans as she arrived to meet the Dalai Lama. She is the first major official to visit the leader of Tibet's exile community since peaceful protests turned violent last week in the Chinese-ruled region.

"If freedom loving people throughout the world do not speak out against China's oppression in China and Tibet, we have lost all moral authority to speak on behalf of human rights anywhere in the world," Pelosi said before a crowd of thousands of Tibetans, including monks and schoolchildren.

"The situation in Tibet is a challenge to the conscience of the world," she said.

-March 21st, via the Associated Press

Leading Chinese Intellectuals Ask China to Rethink Tibet Policy

Leading Chinese intellectuals and writers released a petition today that appeared on several websites in Chinese, entitled 'Twelve Suggestions for Dealing with the Tibetan Situation'. It is a significant indication that Chinese voices are being raised in China in response to the way Beijing has handled the protests that began on March 10. An English translation is published below.

-March 22nd, via the ICFT website

Pope celebrates Mass in thunderstorm, calls for peace

In a speech at the end of the Mass in St. Peter's Square, Benedict said that on the joyous day of Easter, "in particular, how can we fail to remember certain African regions, such as Darfur and Somalia, the tormented Middle East, especially the Holy Land, Iraq, Lebanon and finally Tibet, all of which I encourage to seek solutions that will safeguard peace and the common good."

Benedict denounced "selfishness, injustice, hatred and violence" between individuals and peoples.


"These are the scourges of humanity, open and festering in every corner of the planet, although they are often ignored and sometimes deliberately concealed, wounds that torture the souls and bodies of countless of our brothers and sisters," he said, speaking over the sound of heavy rain in the square.

-March 23rd, via CNN.com

STATEMENT issued by Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu

I wish to express my solidarity with the people of Tibet during this critical time in their history. To my dear friend His Holiness the Dalai Lama, let me say: I stand with you. You define non violence and compassion and goodness. I was in an Easter retreat when the recent tragic events unfolded in Tibet. I learned that China has stated you caused violence. Clearly China does not know you, but they should. I call on China's government to know His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as so many have come to know, during these long decades years in exile. Listen to His Holiness' pleas for restraint and calm and no further violence against this civilian population of monastics and lay people.

I urge China to enter into a substantive and meaningful dialogue with this man of peace, the Dalai Lama. China is uniquely positioned to impact and affect our world. Certainly the leaders of China know this or they would not have bid for the Olympics. Killing, imprisonment and torture are not a sport: the innocents must be released and given free and fair trials.

-March 25th, via the ICFT website

Rice urges China to listen to Dalai Lama on Tibet

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday urged the Chinese government to pursue a more "sustainable" policy toward Tibet and said the only way to do this was for it to talk to the Dalai Lama.

"We believe that the answer for Tibet is to have a more sustainable policy for the Chinese government concerning Tibet." Rice told reporters at a news conference with India's external affairs minister.

"We are going to continue to encourage that dialogue because ultimately that is going to be the only policy that is sustainable in Tibet," she said.

-March 25th, via Reuters

Clinton says U.S. should be forceful on Tibet

GREENSBURG, Penn., (Reuters) - The United States should be more forceful in speaking out against the violence in Tibet, Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday, while declining to call for a boycott of the Olympic Games in China.
"I think that what's happening in Tibet is deeply troubling, and this is a pattern of the Chinese government with respect to their treatment of Tibet," she told reporters after a campaign event in Pennsylvania.
"I don't think we should wait until the Olympics to make sure that our views are known," Clinton said...

-March 25th, via Reuters/The Guardian

Sarkozy Could Skip Olympics Opening
By JENNY BARCHFIELD

PARIS (AP) — French President Nicolas Sarkozy suggested Tuesday that a boycott of the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics was a possibility — the first world leader to raise the prospect of punishing China over its ongoing crackdown in Tibet.

The United States, Britain and Germany all condemned China for using force against Tibetan protesters, but they stopped short of threatening to boycott the games or the Aug. 8 opening ceremony.

China, meanwhile, showed no sign of letting up on its crackdown. At least two people were killed in a clash between protesters and police in an area of western China that borders on Tibet, state media and human rights groups reported Tuesday.

The clashes were the latest in most sustained uprising against Chinese rule in almost two decades...

-March 25th, via the Associated Press

Are Tibetans the new Jews?
By IRA RIFKIN

In 1990, the Dalai Lama hosted a delegation of American Jews in Dharamsala, his home in exile in the hill country of northern India. His agenda was clear. Tibetans had lost sovereignty over their homeland and were scattering around the globe. How, he asked, had Jews preserved their cultural and religious identities during their own 2,000-year exile, and what might Tibetans do to preserve theirs?

Some 18 years later, the parallel between Tibet's unfolding and increasingly bleak prospects and the Jewish historical experience seems all the more relevant.

Just as after the failed first century Jewish uprising against Rome, Tibetans are becoming a minority in their homeland thanks to Beijing's strategy of drastically and irreversibly altering Tibet's population by flooding the territory with Han Chinese, China's dominant ethnic group.

Already, two out of every three residents of Lhasa, Tibet's capital, is Han Chinese. In 2006, Beijing hastened the process considerably by opening a high-speed rail link between Lhasa and Beijing. Saffron-robe clad Tibetan Buddhist monks have been replaced by Chinese-run brothels, karaoke bars and a sprawling amusement park that now surround the Portola Palace, the Dalai Lama's former residence and Tibet's equivalent of Jerusalem's ancient Temple.

But saving the palace does absolutely nothing to offset the greatest threats to Tibet's future as a political entity run by and for Tibetans: the passing of time and humanity's cruelly short memory...

How long will it be before Tibetans are viewed as a relic, and perhaps bothersome, minority in their homeland similar to the condition of Native Americans in the United States, Formosans in Taiwan, or Serbs in Kosovo?

How long must Beijing hold on to Tibet before the world comes to think of Tibet as Chinese territory and favors the claims of the descendants of Chinese settlers over Tibetans seeking to reestablish their historical national rights? Another 30 years? A century or two? Two thousand years?

-March 25th, via The Jerusalem Post

How the Communist Party Leaders and the state-run Chinese media see the situation in Tibet...

Chinese media silent on Tibet

China's official news agency Xinhua on Friday filed two short English-language reports on what it called "violence" in the Tibetan city of Lhasa.

The first report said shops had been set on fire, with the second adding that some vehicles had been set alight and that there had been some injuries.

But the domestic media, including Xinhua's Chinese-language service, has not been observed to mention today's protests.

The focus of all Chinese news media continues to be on the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

Other media silent

As of 1200GMT, neither Xinhua's English nor Chinese websites have been observed to carry any reports on the protests in Tibet.

The Tibet page of the Xinhua website still carries Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang's remarks at yesterday's routine news conference, at which he said: "Recently a small number of monks in Lhasa city have continuously stirred up trouble in an attempt to create social unrest.


"This is a political plot carefully orchestrated by the Dalai clique to bring about Tibet's secession and to ruin the Tibetan people's normal, harmonious, and peaceful lives..."

-March 14th, via the BBC

Dalai Lama 'clique' responsible: China

BEIJING: Groups allied to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama masterminded violent protests in Lhasa, China's official Xinhua news agency quoted the region's government as saying.

"There has been enough evidence to prove that the recent sabotage in Lhasa was organised, premeditated and masterminded' by the Dalai clique," Xinhua said, citing the Tibet government.

"The violence, involving beating, smashing, looting and burning, has disrupted the public order, jeopardised people's lives and property," Xinhua said, citing an unnamed Tibetan official.

"The sabotage has aroused indignation of and is strongly condemned by the people of all ethnic groups in Tibet," Xinhua said, quoting the official.

-March 15th, via The Times of India

Wen puts blame on Dalai Lama for Tibet riots
By Jamil Anderlini in Beijing and Amy Yee in Dharamsala

Wen Jiabao, China's premier, yesterday blamed the Dalai Lama for the worst unrest in Tibet in nearly two decades, and characterised the protests as a plot to sabotage the Olympic Games in Beijing this year.

The incident "has all the more revealed that the assertions by the Dalai clique that they desire peaceful negotiation are nothing but lies", Mr Wen said in his annual press conference yesterday. "Their hypocritical lies cannot cover the iron-clad facts..."

The protests started in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, as peaceful demonstrations led by Buddhist monks last Monday, the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. They turned into widespread -violence on Friday following reports of a Chinese crackdown.

Mr Wen said government and security officials had exercised "extreme restraint" in dealing with protesters, despite claims from Tibetan groups that scores and possibly hundreds of Tibetans had been killed and security forces had opened fire on crowds...

Mr Wen said he appreciated the steps taken by India to limit the independence activities of the "Dalai clique" and hoped the country would stick to agreements with China concerning anti-Chinese demonstrations on Indian soil.

-March 19th, via the Financial Times

China state media slams West over Tibet coverage

BEIJING, March 20 (Reuters) - Chinese official media condemned Western news coverage of unrest in Tibet on Thursday, in a commentary that accused the reports of being "hostile" towards China ahead of the Beijing Olympics.

China says the Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, masterminded a wave of protests that were capped by a riot in Tibet's capital Lhasa last week and were followed by anti-government demonstrations in ethnic Tibetan parts of China.
"While we highly appreciate the efforts of the global media in seeking facts and providing accurate, objective and timely reporting, we are somewhat disappointed to find, from time to time, rather biased news coverage," the official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.

-March 20th, via Reuters

China accuses Dalai Lama of taking Olympics "hostage"
By Chris Buckley, Reuters

BEIJING: China has accused the Dalai Lama of planning bloodshed in Tibet and colluding with Uighur terrorists in Xinjiang as it pushes a security and propaganda drive to stifle anti-Chinese unrest in its remote west...

The ruling Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper, the People's Daily, said on Sunday that the Dalai -- winner of the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize -- had never abandoned violence since fleeing China in 1959, after a failed revolt against Beijing.

"This incident again demonstrates that the so-called 'peaceful non-violence' of the Dalai clique is an outright lie from start to end," the paper stated.

"In 2008, the Beijing Olympic Games, eagerly awaited by the people of the whole world, will arrive. But the Dalai Lama is scheming to take the Beijing Olympics hostage to force the Chinese government to make concessions to Tibet independence."

The paper earlier also accused the Dalai Lama of planning terrorist attacks with the aid of Uighur separatists seeking an independent East Turkestan for their largely Muslim people in northwest China's Xinjiang region.

"The Dalai clique has also strengthened collusion with 'East Turkestan' terror organizations, and planned terror activities in Tibet in a bid to turn the attention of the international community towards Tibet," the paper said on Saturday.

China's efforts to denounce the Dalai Lama has drawn applause from many Han Chinese citizens, who have said Western critics fail to appreciate their government's efforts to develop Tibet and have treated the violence in Lhasa as legitimate protest.

-March 23rd, via The International Herald Tribune

China to boost "patriotic education" of Tibetans

China is planning to step up what it calls its "patriotic education" of Tibet's Buddist monks. in the wake of deadly separatist riots there. Chinese authorities have blamed the violence on the influence of the Dalai Lama on pro-independence activists. The exiled Tibetan spiritual has denied the claim and called for an end to the rioting.

Professor Dramdul of the China Tibetology Research Centre said: "Patriotic education is neccessary because the Dalai clique has been trying hard to disrupt Tibet's development and Tibetan Buddhism. We've been educating the monks to counter the influence of a small group of separatists from abroad."

Protests against the Beijing government continue.

-March 26th, via EuroNews

How His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama sees this situation in Tibet...

Statement by the Dalai Lama on protests in Tibet

I am deeply concerned over the situation that has been developing in Tibet following peaceful protests in many parts of Tibet, including Lhasa, in recent days. These protests are a manifestation of the deep-rooted resentment of the Tibetan people under the present governance.

As I have always said, unity and stability under brute force is at best a temporary solution. It is unrealistic to expect unity and stability under such a rule and would therefore not be conducive to finding a peaceful and lasting solution.

I therefore appeal to the Chinese leadership to stop using force and address the long-simmering resentment of the Tibetan people through dialogue with the Tibetan people. I also urge my fellow Tibetans not to resort to violence.

THE DALAI LAMA

-March 15th, via the ICTB website

Allow Olympics despite Tibet: Dalai Lama

Tibet's exiled spiritual leader the Dalai Lama says the Beijing Olympics should go ahead despite the Chinese crackdown on protests in his homeland.

"I want the Games," he said, refusing to call for a boycott, as many Tibetan exiles have been demanding.

"The Olympics should not be called off," he told reporters in Dharamsala in northern India, the seat of the Tibetan government-in-exile and the Dalai Lama's home in exile.

But he said Beijing needed to be "reminded to be a good host of the Olympic Games".

"The Chinese people ... need to feel proud of it. China deserves to be a host of the Olympic Games," he added, saying Beijing needed to be "reminded to be a good host of the Olympic Games".

-March 16th, via The Age

Dalai Lama Threatens to Resign

DHARAMSALA, India — The Dalai Lama on Tuesday invited international observers, including Chinese officials, to scour his offices here and investigate whether he had any role in inciting the latest anti-Chinese violence in Tibet. He also threatened to resign as leader of Tibet’s government-in-exile in the event of spiraling bloodshed in his homeland.

He said he remained committed to only nonviolent agitation and greater autonomy for Tibetans, not independence. He condemned the burning of Chinese flags and attacks on Chinese property and called violence “suicidal” for the Tibetan cause...

The Dalai Lama’s remarks to reporters on Tuesday, here in the seat of the Tibetan exile movement, also revealed that he has been unnerved by the violence across the border in Tibet and by the increasingly radical calls from Tibetan exiles in this country.

The 72-year-old spiritual leader of Lama Buddhism said he would step down from his political post if things “get out of control”...

The Dalai Lama said he remained open to resuming peace talks with Chinese officials, and in an impish reference to the criticisms by Chinese leaders, said a solution could be reached swiftly if there were “mutual respect” and a willingness to take Tibetan grievances seriously.

There was no direct criticism of either Mr. Hu or China’s Premier Wen Jiabao, only of local officials whom the Dalai Lama accused of creating “artificial facts.” “Prime Minister,” he said, addressing Mr. Wen, “Come here and investigate thoroughly.”

-March 19th, via The New York Times

Dalai Lama willing to meet Chinese president

DHARMSALA, India (AP) - The Dalai Lama says he's willing to meet Chinese leaders, including President Hu Jintao, for talks on the unrest over Tibet.

He repeated that he's not seeking independence for Tibet, but only autonomy under China's control.

China says Tibet's exiled Buddhist leader must stop what it calls separatist activities, and recognize Tibet and Taiwan as parts of China.

Chinese officials and media are confirming today that unrest had spread from Tibet to neighboring provinces in recent days. Tibetan officials in exile say at least 80 people have died. Chinese officials say 16 were killed.

Violence followed protests in Tibet that began March 10th, the anniversary of a failed 1959 uprising.

-March 20th, via CBS affiliates

Beijing Olympics should go on: Dalai Lama
Press Trust of India (New Delhi)

The Dalai Lama on Sunday firmly backed the Beijing Olympics despite the Chinese crackdown on Tibetan protesters that prompted demands for boycott of the games.

"I have always supported that Olympic Games should take place in China," he told reporters in Delhi, terming as "baseless" the communist giant's charge that he was trying to "sabotage" the premier sporting event slated for August.

"They are the hosts. The Olympics should take place in Beijing," the 72-year-old Tibetan spiritual leader, who heads the Tibetan government in exile and was in Delhi in connection with a religious workshop, said.

March 23rd, via NDTV

How many Tibetans and pro-Tibet demonstrators are reacting to the situation...


Protesting and rioting in Tibet...

Protesting and demonstrating in India...

Protesting and demonstrating in Nepal...

Protesting and demonstrating in Germany...

Protesting and demonstrating in Belgium...

Protesting and demonstrating in the United States...

Who will liberate them from us? Who will liberate us from ourselves?

Many bloggers who are citizens of the United States of America, in particular those who are/like to think they are sympathetic to human rights violations such as illegal detention and torture, or to the impact of development strategies on "poor" nations and on the environment, may have links and banners up which talk about the cost of the occupation of Iraq, or the plight of the people of the Sudan, or Burma, or Tibet. But the one thing I keep wondering when I see this stuff is - who is going to liberate the world from our greed, our selfishness, our arrogance, and our indifference? From our views about what is "best" for other societies and cultures when it comes to concepts like "modernization"?

Globalization is complex. If you change one thing here, it could have drastic consequences there. So it can be confusing and disheartening when evaluating domestic and foreign policy. But that doesn't excuse us from trying, and from trying to see what the bottom line is that drives certain policy goals. For example, for the past 60 years it has been the opinion of many Western, industrialized nations that modernization, i.e. becoming more like "us", is the best path to take. This is not rooted in an evil outlook - many good-hearted people genuinely believe that such economic development will lead to improvements in infrastructure, increased availability of jobs, better health care, and other aspects we cherish about our own way of life. This tends to be measured by factors such as nation's Gross National Product, consumer spending, and employment rates. But these indicators can be misleading and do not necessarily reflect a higher quality of life for many of the poorest people in these places.

And all of this is connected to trade policies, loans to nations that want to "develop", global health crises, environmental degradation, and local and regional conflicts. It's like a game of Jenga - how many times can you pull a piece out before the whole edifice collapses? If you "fix" one problem on one area, have you considered what effect it will have somewhere else? Anthropologists, sociologists, political scientists, economists, historians, and others continue studying these questions and attempting to to advise policy makers about the impact of trade agreements, foreign aid, and other attempts to manipulate and manage world concerns.

Yet most U.S. citizens are, understandably, neither aware of nor would many be concerned with the loss of a traditional native culture in some "remote" location, or the impact of development efforts on the survival of many primates, our remaining evolutionary cousins on our branch of the bush of Life. Some U.S. citizens are vaguely aware that the path that modernization and globalization have taken and are taking creates massive disparities in access to health care, nutrition, safety, and the capacity for a meaning and fulfilling life in many regions of the world. They may have heard about contemporary slavery (and it's bastard child, wage slavery), but the impact of this revelation for many is relatively small. Many more U.S. citizens have been told or heard that the rich around the world are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and that in some way buying cheap imported goods is helping to drive this division, but a good number may also feel that they can't afford the extra time and cost to hunt down fair trade items and would rather sign a petition online or even make the "major" effort to go to a local rally or other awareness-raising event.

But I suspect that the majority of Americans are not really cognizant of the fact that problems such as the massive increase in (illegal) immigration from poorer, peripheral nations to the richer, industrialized nations has many of the same root causes that are destroying the rainforests and encouraging international corporations to move much of their operations out of the core nations. Those that do look into these matters must weave through a minefield of political rhetoric and are virtually always dependent on the summary and conclusions of someone else's analysis. And naturally you can find a report that appears to demonstrate whatever one wants to believe about our policies and the effects of our way of life on the rest of humanity and on the planet itself.

Hence, vaguely unaware yet troubled by what we have glimpsed, we do what humans tend to do. We become accustomed to how things are. We rationalize our behaviors. After all, it is exceedingly unlikely that most people who lived through socially/state sanctioned slavery weren't evil, and may have been troubled to some degree by the practice, but it was just how things were. And slavery was everywhere - and it was so central to the economy and to trade. How could you fight it? Unless of course you were one of those trouble-making kooks, those malcontent abolitionists. The same is true of many other injustices we now abhor but which were once considered generally acceptable. Better not rock the boat, you know, just be glad you have what you have. Even going to a rally might be a little too radical - I mean, standing with a sign for a couple of hours - that's so hard core. What will people think?

So then the dilemma - what difference does voting your conscience, signing an online petition, and walking in a rally actually make if it isn't part of a large and highly visible movement that can motivate our leaders? And who has the time to sift through all the spin, and figure out who to buy what from? After all, it seems sometimes like in the corporate world practically everyone is financially "in bed" with everyone else, so again, what difference is the effort going to make? After all, even for those of us having rough times, we are generally still addicted to the dominant cultural images of a successful and happy life and committed to achieving it. I mean, slaves are mining a component used to make cell phones and lap tops, but it's time to grab your own electronic gadgets and go to work. Children are being poisoned and suffering birth defects from environmental degradation, but you are late picking up your own child from soccer practice. It's a shame that political prisoners are being tortured and killed, but that new show is coming on next. And after all - what can you do about it anyway? What I can really do about that?

Why can't we live our own lives and let other people worry about their own (and hope that somehow things improve because of other people's efforts or that at the very least we don't have to think about this stuff anymore)? No one asked us if we wanted to have this politico-economic system (so it is unfair to ask me to consider how I am benefiting in so many ways from the obscene way this system is rigged). It isn't our fault we won the geographic lottery when we were born (and if we are not directly confronted with the suffering and destruction we implicitly or explicitly condone it doesn't actually seem that real or compelling anyway). We're just making the best out of the situation and we do what we can (do within the limits of what we are willing to risk on behalf of our principles and values compared to our comfort and security). It is unfair to blame or judge me for what is being done in my name on behalf of the bottom line of corrupt governments and immoral business concerns (and I am not going to want to keep listening to your concerns if all you do is make me feel bad about myself). It's not that I like the Empire; I hate it. But there's nothing I can do about it right now... It's all such a long way from here (oops, that's a line from Star Wars).

So how do we navigate the naive idealism and worse, the naive cynicism, that exists throughout the political and social spectra of our society? How do we break through the commercials and ads and busy schedules and other distractions that help people "look the other way" when it comes to our own nation and society's successes and failures in trying to "help" others? What about the international aid programs that do work and the corporations that are ethical and successful? I have heard it said that often people who work for "causes" love humanity but can't stand individuals. What does that say about how such causes are going to be championed and presented to the public? Should we only associate and work with people who we deem to be "ideologically pure"? And how might a focus on learning to love the individual work as part of a bottom-up model of grass-roots change? Didn't that work for Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha) and Joshua-ben Joseph (the Christ)? Is the new trend in some Christian/evangelical circles towards raising awareness of/confronting the global problems being addressed here an opportunity and a sign of things to come? Could the (frequently) secular "left" accept working with such groups in order to change to face of politics and global trade? Might such a movement alter people's perceptions about what matters and embolden ordinary citizens to live up to their professed values and challenge the conventional view of the power and role of governments and corporations?

I cannot really say - but I do think there is cause for hope. However, I should confess that I am one of those selfish clods who, even aware of some small sliver of what is happening outside the financial and personal concerns of my own life, tends to be content with slapping up a banner or occasionally giving a shout out to some socially-conscious organization. I suffer from the same moral paralysis that plagues many of my fellow citizens. Like the smoker who continues to light up after a tracheotomy and having a cancerous lung removed, or an obese individual who continues to eat large quantities of fatty, salty foods after suffering a heart attack and developing diabetes, I am simultaneously aware and unaware of the consequences of my failure to change course and live a better way. How about you?


postscript: I have discovered a similar (but shorter and blunter) kind of reflection recently posted over at Peacebang. How serendipitous.

Coming and goings

Nobel Peace Prize winner, champion of the the importance of the eminence of reverence for life, accomplished musician, theologian, physician, and ethicist, Albert Schweitzer, was born on this day in 1875. Shinran Shonin, disciple of Honen, the founder of the Japanese school of Pure Land Buddhism, died on this day 1262. While not seeking to establish his own sect, his interpretations and clarifications led to a new form of Japanese Pure Land most commonly known as Shin Buddhism. The Level 8th Buddhist has a post on this memorial and a link to a nice performance of Shinran’s hymn, the Shōshinge

If Jesus is the reason for the season, what does our attitude toward and during the season say about our perspective on Jesus?

The first of today's selections, Jackson Browne's "Rebel Jesus", comes "borrowed" from the Progressive Islam blog. Hey, if someone else has a great insight, why not share it? (as long as you pass along the credit too...)



All the streets are filled with laughter and light
And the music of the season
And the merchants windows are all bright
With the faces of the children
And the families hurrying to their homes
As the sky darkens and freezes
They’ll be gathering around the hearths and tales
Giving thanks for all God’s graces
And the birth of the rebel Jesus

Well they call him by the prince of peace
And they call him by the savior
And they pray to him upon the seas
And in every bold endeavor
As they fill his churches with their pride and gold
And their faith in him increases
But they’ve turned the nature that I worshiped in
From a temple to a robbers den
In the words of the rebel Jesus

We guard our world with locks and guns
And we guard our fine possessions
And once a year when Christmas comes
We give to our relations
And perhaps we give a little to the poor
If the generosity should seize us
But if any one of us should interfere
In the business of why they are poor
They get the same as the rebel Jesus

But please forgive me if I seem
To take the tone of judgment
For I’ve no wish to come between
This day and your enjoyment
In this life of hardship and of earthly toil
We have need for anything that frees us
So I bid you pleasure
And I bid you cheer
From a heathen and a pagan
On the side of the rebel Jesus.

I chose second selection, "Happy Christmas (War is Over)" by John Lennon, because I think is a good follow-up:



So this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year over
A new one just begun
And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear ones
The old and the young

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
For weak and for strong (...if you want it)
The rich and the poor ones (War is Over...)
The road is so long (...now)
And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
For black and for white (...if you want it)
For yellow and red ones (War is Over...)
Let's stop all the fights (...now)

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas (War is over...)
And what have we done (...if you want it)
Another year over (War is Over...)
And a new one just begun (...now)
And so happy Christmas (War is Over...)
We hope you have fun (...if you want it)
The near and the dear ones (War is Over...)
The old and the young (...now)

A merry merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear
War is over, if you want it
War is over now

Happy Christmas!

The point is not to try to put a guilt trip on anyone. Many people don't need help with that anyway. The holidays can generate a lot of tension and distress. People may feel that they have let down their friends, or relatives, or ideals, that they haven't done enough for their community, their religion, or themselves. Or they may feel others have let them down. They may feel disconnected, insufficient, or be in some other form of spiritual [=nature of the interconnectedness of life]crisis. One may wonder, "What can I offer?" or "What can I do?"

That question is the reason for the third and final selection, "Little Drummer Boy" written and composed by Katherine K. Davis, Henry Onorati and Harry Simeone. This is as close to the version I used to listen to as a child as I was able to find online...



Come they told me, pa rum pum pum pum
A new born King to see, pa rum pum pum pum
Our finest gifts we bring, pa rum pum pum pum
To lay before the King, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

So to honor Him, pa rum pum pum pum,
When we come.

Little Baby, pa rum pum pum pum
I am a poor boy too, pa rum pum pum pum
I have no gift to bring, pa rum pum pum pum
That's fit to give the King, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

Shall I play for you, pa rum pum pum pum,
On my drum?

Mary nodded, pa rum pum pum pum
The ox and lamb kept time, pa rum pum pum pum
I played my drum for Him, pa rum pum pum pum
I played my best for Him, pa rum pum pum pum,
rum pum pum pum, rum pum pum pum,

Then He smiled at me, pa rum pum pum pum
Me and my drum.

Merry Christmas.

The value of human life in the culture of life?

Whether it is policies that force Mexicans to go more dangerous routes to try to cross the US border or the so-called "collateral damage" of wars of choice, the impact of trade policies that make huge profits for large companies and cheaper prices for American consumers that simultaneously generate (lethal) poverty in other parts of the world, or simply shooting two unarmed men on your neighbor's property against the instructions of the police, how can any of this be called a "culture of life"? Or is it supposed to be only a respect for American, preferably white, English-speaking and Christian, life?

Let's examine the last example in more detail.

Radio and television talk show host Alan Colmes, a self-described liberal Democrat, has been discussing the issue of Joe Horn, a Texas man who shot two men to death on his neighbors property. It is not surprising that people who call radio talk shows are often as outrageous as they are outspoken, but sometimes they do reflect a current of more popular opinion, at least within certain socioeconomic circles. Callers to Alan's show have brought up the fact that apparently the two men were burglars. But does committing a criminal act justify the casual taking of a life in which someone with a shotgun yells "Boom! Your dead!" and then fires point blank at two people? Then it was reported one or both of them may have been in the country illegally and that they may have been Mexican. Again, does that justify disregarding the instructions of the 911 dispatcher and shooting two men to death on someone else's properly?

There was no imminent danger to anyone until Mr. Horn left the house against the instructions he was receiving from the dispatcher. The police were on route and arrived soon after the shooting. Forget for a moment whether Mr. Horn put himself or the lives of plain clothes police officers in danger by leaving his house with a loaded shotgun in the middle of a robbery. Is human life worth so little? How does calling them criminals lessen the fact that they were human beings? How does calling them illegal aliens or Mexicans lessen the fact that they were human beings? And with no imminent danger, or even the appearance of imminent danger, to Mr. Horn, what was the justification for needlessly taking a life? For needlessly taking two? Does our culture value human life so little?

More to the point, based on remarks and phrases as well as self-identification of personal beliefs and politics, it seems that many of the people who are trying not only to justify what Mr. Horn did but also celebrate it include those who call abortion a massacre. Really? Now I am aware that there are many (and I sincerely hope that the majority of) people who consider themselves pro-life would disapprove of what happened in Texas. But what about that sizable segment who want to see more people do what Mr. Horn did? How can they honestly consider themselves any part of something called a "culture of life"?

It sounds more like a culture of fear and retribution.

Reality as it is

Watch this video...



Then watch these videos...

Considering how to leave Iraq is your responsibilty too

If you are an American citizen of voting age, that is.

In the current issue of Mother Jones magazine the point is made that whether or not you were for the war from the beginning, or whether you changed your mind after the invasion, or whether you are still for it but realize that the U.S. can't (or shouldn't) sustain the occupation, the debate is still rooted in 2003. Most of the focus in public still an argument whether we should have gone, whose fault it is that things have gone a particular way, etc. To put it more bluntly:

For those of us who argued against invading, it is tempting to simply demand an end to "Bush's War" and wash our hands of it. But as General Anthony Zinni, former head of U.S. forces in the Middle East, told us, "Your conscience is not clean just because you're a peace demonstrator." In other words, just because you weren't in favor of going in doesn't mean you're not responsible for what happens when we pull out...

There are no good options in Iraq, but the options narrow to the horrific the longer our leaders dawdle. Bush seems content—whether out of delusional optimism or cynical "strategery"—to run out the clock and stick the next administration with this mess; only 5 percent of Americans expect him to do otherwise. And the Democrats are playing the other side of the same game—content to let the GOP go down with its man.

So what is to be done?

To help focus the readers' collective attention, and as a means or surveying various anti-war groups with regard to this issue, Mother Jones came up with six questions for Americans who oppose the current occupation in Iraq to consider:

Q: After American troops withdraw, will the violence in Iraq escalate?

Q: Should the peace movement offer a contingency plan for peacekeeping?

Q: Under what conditions would you redeploy American troops to Iraq?

Q: What will prevent Iraq's civil war from flaring into genocidal violence?

Q: What will make the world stop genocide in Iraq when it didn't in Rwanda or Darfur?

Q: Is there any contradiction between supporting U.S. military intervention to stop the Rwandan genocide and opposing U.S. military intervention to prevent ethnic cleansing in Iraq?

These questions are not intended to persuade people to keep U.S. troops in Iraq, but to get people focused on the realities of withdrawing the troops. After all, if there is any way to lessen the suffering of the Iraqi people as we disengage militarily, do not the people who have been arguing about the damage and pain we have been inflicting on that populace have an obligation to fight just as passionately for the most humane process possible?

I find it interesting that in glancing at responses people have already given to this article, there is a common attitude in which "fault" and "responsibility" are seen as strictly synonymous. In my humble opinion they are not and I will explain why I do not believe they are and what relevance this belief has on how I see the agenda anti-war movement. Fault is the attribution of a particular form of responsibility, generally the point at which a pivotal failure or mistake can be identified which led to a particular undesirable outcome. Another way to think of it is "causal responsibility". A particular action or inaction directly contributed to a specific outcome, so we say the person or persons who carried out the action (including acts of omission) are at fault, and therefore in the causal sense they are considered to be responsible for what happened.

But there is more than just directly causal forms of responsibility. Hence in some cases when someone fails to meet an obligation, they may still be considered "responsible" for the failure even if the reason they failed cannot be attributed to a foreseeable and hence preventable set of circumstances leading to the failure. That is, you can be responsible for certain outcomes regardless of personal fault. This is particularly true when you are a part of a larger group. You may have opposed the decision of the group as a whole, but as a member of that group, you share at least some responsibility for its actions.

That is why voting and other forms of civic participation are so crucial, as we all bear some responsibility for what our leaders do in our names. And it is also why to use that tired old excuse "I didn't vote for the person" fails to miss the point. We are not a collection of individual autonomous polities interacting on the world stage, we are members of a particular society in a specific nation and as much as we may not always like to recognize it, we support and receive benefit from our connection as a nation and as a nation we exert influence on global policy regarding trade, the environment, war, etc, even when that influence is at odds with our personal beliefs and our work with charitable groups and NGOs.

So, then, rather absolving ourselves by saying it is "Bush's occupation", or the "neocons' occupation", or that because they didn't vote to cut off funding it is also now the "Congressional Demoracts' occupation", it is important we never forget that as Americans, even including Americans who have fought tooth and nail to oppose the invasion from the start, it still is and will continue to be "our occupation" too. It is eating though the mental and physical health and the lives of our service people, our taxes, our reputation in the world and on and on (and that's without reflecting on what is doing to the Iraqis).

Therefore I thank all of those who have, are, and will spend time considering how to end our occupation and how to do so in a way that gives the greatest odds for the best scenario for our military and for the people of Iraq, especially those who are taking action on these issues. Lest anyone think that I am writing this in a smug fashion, or that I have a better understanding of the situation, or that I have "done" more than you, please know that this is not the case. I am posing here an issue that I found compelling because I felt you might as well. To those who would ask me, "So what have you done about these issues?", I simply say, "Not enough."