Category Archives: Religion

Gay Marriage

Posted by on March 28, 2012 No comments

This has been quite a hot topic in the UK recently, I decided to wait till a little of the heat seemed to have gone out of it before airing my views.  We have made considerable progress on the rights of Gay people and the differently gendered, in my view we should be pleased with how far we’ve come.  That doesn’t mean we can let ourselves become complacent though.

The opposition to Gay marriage seems to me to be religious conservatives, I’ve seen no secular opposition or religious liberal opposition.  This opposition seems to be based on two arguments.  The first is an argument from religious dogma, which boils down to what the religious book says.  The second is based on an idea of the ownership of marriage by the religious.  Note that I avoid naming a specific religion, this is a deliberate choice on my part as I think my comments are applicable to more than one faith.

Let’s look at the first argument, the argument from dogma.  This really isn’t an argument, I’ve taken aim at religious dogma so often in the past that you can probably guess what I’m going to say here.  This dogma is the unverified writings of a stone age priesthood, whatever it says was not written with a modern audience (or the modern world) in mind.  I can assert this as the writer could not have known the future and so couldn’t be expected to anticipate the world these writings now find themselves in.  What we have is two people in love, trying to be happy together, being blocked by some stone age writing of highly dubious origin and transmission.  Remember, the only claim this dogma has to authority is the idea that it’s the unaltered world of a god.  I’ve aimed at that before, so will simply link to my previous writings.  On a personal level, I am mystified why it should be called “Gay Marriage”, or even “Marriage”, wouldn’t you want to lose the religious baggage that this label brings with it?

The second argument: they think they own marriage, no, I am not making this up.  The argument is that because the word “Marriage” is defined in their religious texts which pre date the state, then the state cannot redefine them.  The notion of marriage is recorded by the ancient Greeks, but we know that the Sumerians (3000 – 2000 BCE) had marriages. I think this casts doubt on the idea being exclusively owned by any current “in play” religion.  Same sex unions are recorded during the Zhou (1046 – 260 BC) and Ming (1368 – 1644 AD) dynasties in China and in also Rome (the Emperor Nero).  I think this disproves any idea that it’s purely a modern phenomenon.

As a Buddhist I know that the world is in constant change, the evolution of the definition of marriage is simply one part of that change.  It has changed between civilisations over time and will, no doubt, continue to do so.  The institution of marriage is defined by the people in the marriages, they do this every day with the Karma they create through their actions and interactions.  It is not owned by either a religious institution or the state.

This is about the right of two people in love to join together and make a formal commitment.  That love and that commitment are what’s important, not the arguments surrounding a religious institution or secular state based view of marriage.

Finally, a quick note on the religious definition of marriage as “one man and one woman”.  In the Bible, the old Testament prophets are show as having more than one wife.  In both Exodus (21:10) and Deuteronomy (17:17 & 21:15-17) instructions are given for how they are to be treated. So, even the bible violates that definition.

MPs and The Power Of Prayer

Posted by on March 27, 2012 No comments

This came through my Twitter feed yesterday and I couldn’t resist opening it, like a moth to a flame.  It seems that a group of British Christian MPs are going to try to overturn a ban on adverts promoting the healing power of prayer.

The football player Fabrice Muamba has begun to make a recovery after his collapse last week and these MPs have decided that as he was the recipient of many prayers and good wishes, this means that prayer works.  Oh, really?  So in their opinions, does this have nothing to do with the prompt actions of the medical staff from both team and the expensive professional medical care he received afterwards?

They then challenge the UK Advertising Standards Authority as follows:

We write to express our concern at this decision and to enquire about the basis on which it has been made. It appears to cut across two thousand years of Christian tradition and the very clear teaching in the Bible. Many of us have seen and experienced physical healing ourselves in our own families and churches and wonder why you have decided that this is not possible.

On what scientific research or empirical evidence have you based this decision?

Let me be clear, having looked at the ASA judgement itself, their position seems to be that there is no evidence in support of the claims of healing. These MPs have got the cart firmly before the horse here.  As the ones making the claims of divine healing, the responsibility is with the advertiser and themselves to provide the empirical evidence of such healing, it does not lie with the ASA.

There have been studies conducted into the healing power of prayer, some even funded by religious groups.  These studies drew a blank, no scientific evidence has yet been found to conclude that prayer has any healing power whatever.  Oddly, some patients got worse, which was put down to a form of performance anxiety on their part.  I think that in light of this, the most reasonable conclusion at this time is that the healing power of prayer has no supporting evidence and is unproven.

Faith Schools

Posted by on March 24, 2012 No comments

A new report from the Church of England caught my eye today, courtesy of the British Humanist Association.  It seems to be pushing for a stronger evangelising of state funded Church schools, while complaining of the attack of secularism.

How are these publicly funded schools supposed to be inclusive when they make children of other faiths or no faith whatsoever feel like outsiders?  Let’s be clear, the landscape in the United Kingdom is changing and has been for years.  Secularism in this country has now strengthened to the point that it is challenging the established Church, which poses some very difficult questions for the powers that be.  The British Social Attitudes Survey shows that  50% of the population are secular and this is even higher in the under 24s.  These schools are state funded, which means they are paid for from the taxes levied on non-Christians and Christians alike.  With this thought in place, you have to ask how you can justify using public money to promote one faith over all the other alternatives?

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 2

Posted by on March 19, 2012 No comments

In my previous post, I talked about why I think that drawing ethics from a dogmatic supernaturally inspired source isn’t really a very good idea.  In this post, I’d like to talk a little about why I think that ethics drawn from a secular source are more meaningful.  I also think that as Buddhism has a long history of doing just that, it has an awful lot to bring to the table in this process.

Why do I think this?  When we hand the responsibility over to a third party to decide our morals, or forgive us, this takes quite a lot away from us as Human Beings.  We can no longer claim to be masters of our own destinies, we cannot evolve our morality in any meaningful way and we still have responsibility for our actions.  This is because we are the ones who chose to let someone else drive and then willingly went along for the ride.

Speaking from the viewpoint of this Secular Buddhist, it’s much more meaningful to take this power back for ourselves.  Buddhist ethics are based in a clear minded view of the world in this moment, as it is.  Not coloured by dogma or beliefs, by superstitions or agendas.  We have to actually think about the issues as they are in this moment, justify what we think and why we think that way rationally and without recourse to dogma.  We have to consider the feelings of others, we must practise empathy and consider the Karma that our actions produce for ourselves and others.  This leads to a greater consideration for the humanity of others and underlines our deep and powerful connection to those around us.

It also brings me back to something I’ve covered in a previous posts, the idea of forgiveness and compassion starting with ourselves.  When forgiveness is doled out by another, we’re not required to understand or forgive and we’re not really able to, not even for ourselves.  When we are the ones doing the forgiving, we are required to understand that we’re imperfect, limited and fallible.  Coming from that position, accepting that we are flawed and imperfect, we can learn to forgive ourselves.  Once we can do that, we’re in a much better position to use that same understanding to begin to forgive others.

 

Why is Secular Buddhism Important? – Part 1

Posted by on March 18, 2012 No comments

I’ve done a very brief turn around the notion of Secular Buddhism recently.  I’ve talked a little about my view on why Buddhism is originally secular and why it’s such a good fit for the west.  I also covered very briefly how it came west, though there is a lot that can be said about that, I urge you to pursue your own research.  Accounts of the Panadura debate are available on line, and I may be able to reproduce them on this website once I’ve looked into the copyright issues.  But I haven’t been near a question.  Why is Secular Buddhism important, why am I of the opinion that it’s vital to have it?

The answer, I feel comes down to awareness and the willingness to see.  Humanity has many religions, depending on where you draw the line this number can vary.  These religions for the most part draw their authority from their particular god, so I see them as drawing their moral authority from an source outside provable and verifiable reality.  This effectively means that anything can be passed off as morality and go unchallenged as once you subscribe to religion your incentives are to support the status quo.  Want an example?  The Catholic Church frowns on the use of birth control, this from a religion that is widespread in some of the poorest areas on the planet!  The most effective thing the Catholic Church could do for these areas is allow condoms and other contraception.  This would reduce population pressure and the strain on already poor families, it would also reduce the spread of AIDS and other diseases all of which would benefit these communities no end.

For a second example, I’ll move along to Homosexuality.  According to the doctrines of many religions Homosexuality is a sin, pure and simple.  Buddhism, tends to vary depending on where you are but as far as I am aware the Buddha was silent on this.  There are a number of stones thrown at Homosexuals by the religious (remember “he who is without sin”, anyone?), this isn’t the time to get into it in depth but I’ll make one comment.  Homosexuality has been observed in 450 species in the wild on Earth, Homophobia in only one.  You can say the same about religion come to think of it, same species too, odd that isn’t it?

In my opinion, because of doctrine, the Catholic Church can’t allow any of this to be challenged.  The doctrine of Papal infallibility means that to admit that they were wrong would be to shake the bedrock, this is something they cannot have.  I’ve already expressed my views on the consequences of that before.

Buddhism in the West

Posted by on March 16, 2012 No comments

My previous two posts have continued a short theme I wished to explore.  They’ve hopefully explained why I consider Buddhism to be Secular and provided a very quick overview of how Buddhism came to the West.  So here we are, Buddhism is in the western world and according to some sources is the fastest growing religion (I use the term as a shorthand) in many countries, maybe even the whole western world. [1] [2] [3] [4]

I think Buddhism has come to fit the western world very well.  Buddhism is finding that in many places it fits very well with modern science.  Indeed the attitude of questioning and verifying things for yourself that the Buddha speaks of to the people of Kesaputta in the Kalama Sutra is not at all antagonistic to the scientific endeavour.  I’ve posted verses 4 and 10 from the above link in order to bring them directly to your attention.

4. “It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them.

10. “Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumour; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another’s seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, ‘The monk is our teacher.’ Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.

The above isn’t the only thing Buddhism has to offer that fits it with an increasingly secular west, you will find Buddhist meditation centres in many western cities.  Theravada centres, Zen centres and New Kadampa centres among just a few.  The teachings of Buddhism offer a powerful potential antidote to the stresses, strains and challenges of modern life.  They allow a person to find a sense of peace in our high-tech materialist society without making you feel inherently sinful or unworthy.  For me, as for many others here in the west, this is a huge part of the appeal.

References

[1] – Buddhism fastest growing religion in west.
[2] – Buddhism is fastest growing religion in English jails over past decade.
[3] – Buddhism: Ancient faith experiences and explosion of growth in US.
[4] – Why is Buddhism the fastest growing religion in Australia?

 

Buddhism Comes West

Posted by on March 15, 2012 No comments

I said previously that I’d say a little more about how Buddhism came to the west.  I’m going to put my notes into some sort of order and relate them here.

The story starts in Sri Lanka.  Both the Anglican church and the Catholic church had missionaries in the country and under the colonial rule of the British they were busily making converts and making life very difficult for the indigenous religion, Buddhism.  The Buddhists were ill equipped to make any inroads until a monk called Migettuwatte Gunananda Thera came along.  He had received much exposure to the Christian faith and scripture as he had originally intended to be a Christian priest, but he took a different path and became a Buddhist monk.  He participated in a defining debate between the Christians and the Buddhists, which took place in the town of Panadura on the 24th and 26th August 1873.  Prior to this, there had been several other debates which had mostly been written, but this one was the clincher.  The Buddhist side emerged victorious and the scene was set for a revival of Buddhism in Sri Lanka.

Ok, that’s fine, but how did Buddhism come to the West?  Enter Col. Henry Steel Olcott.  Col. Olcott was a co-founder of the Theosophical Society, and when a translation of the debate caught his eye, he sent a large amount of material to Sri Lanka, all of it critical of Christianity.  This was translated and distributed, Col. Olcott then visited the country.

Col Olcott wrote a book “The Buddhist Catechism” which is still in demand today.  He helped organise the Buddhist revival in Sri Lanka and started the process of drawing both Buddhism and modern science together.  He and Helena P. Blavatsky of the Theosophical Society became the first known westerners to convert to Buddhism.  Through their influence the Dharma started to come West.