god doesn't have to be a 4-letter word

Just finished reading Karen Armstrong's A History of God, which goes well with this article I think. In it, Armstrong explores the history of "God" — a word that we come to discover packs a lot more meaning than simply some celestial Big Brother in the sky — particularly how ideas about God have evolved in the three main monotheistic religions throughout the centuries, and how those ideas have influenced religion, art, science, philosophy, and culture in a dialectical way.

Throughout the book, Armstrong routinely steers away from God as an objective reality or being, focusing instead on the role of God as a subjective experience in our collective lives, the product of the creative imagination, much like music, poetry, and art. From her point of view, God, or spirituality in general, gives expression to certain ideas, feelings, and experiences that we all tend to have, and it's likely not a coincidence that, "When people try to find an ultimate meaning and value in human life, their minds seem to go in a certain direction. They have not been coerced to do this; it is something that seems natural to humanity" (394).

She continually stresses the symbolic nature of these ideas, however, since the full reality of the absolute can't be put into words, stressing again and again that they become dangerous when taken too literally and clung to in a fundamentalistic way. Religion is always at its best when this is understood. Our ideas about God, the universe, or anything else for that matter, constantly grow and change, which in turn revolutionizes the way we perceive and interact with the world and one another. She demonstrates that, when one idea of God is no longer tenable or useful, it fades away to be replaced by one that does, illustrating an evolution of consciousness as we expand our understanding of the world and ourselves.

One idea I found especially interesting is that, since the philosophical death of God that's come about in the last couple hundred years, there's been nothing to take its place, leaving a void in our psyches. Armstrong suggests that we create a faith for ourselves to cultivate our sense of the wonder and ineffable significance of life, but "the aimlessness, alienation, anomie and violence that characterize so much of modern life" seem to indicate that that's no longer the case (397-8). We need to create a new focus of meaning, however, not fall back onto fundamentalism, apocalypticism, and 'instant' charismatic forms of religiosity that are currently prevalent in the US and other parts of the world.

Although I know there are many who'd strongly disagree with me on this, I'm inclined to side with Armstrong's assessment. While I think it's important to try and liberate society from its suffering and alienation by changing the material conditions that support it, which includes building on our scientific understanding of the world, I also think there's a spiritual dimension that needs to be addressed. Religion, then, isn't just some kind of spiritual painkiller; it can also be part of the cure.

may day 2015

May Day has been an important day to me ever since participating in my first May Day rally back in 2009, an experience that truly helped to ignite the sparks of my political consciousness. It's a day that unifies the struggles and celebrates the victories of all working people, as well as highlighting the specific struggles of those who are victims of additional forms of discrimination and oppression within our socio-economic system, e.g., immigrants, people of colour, women, the LGBT community, low-wage workers, etc.

I met up with my friend Molly at PSU around 3pm, and together we walked to the South Park blocks to join the May Day rally. I ran into a number of people I knew, including my friend Joe, activist extraordinaire Cameron Whitten, Rebecca, one of my co-workers, and AFSCME Council 75 president, Jeff Klatke. While we were milling about and listening to the speakers, Molly, who volunteers with VOZ, a workers' rights education centre, had me write a short letter to the city council encouraging the allocation of much needed funds for local Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs in Portland.

At about 4:30pm, the march began with the addition of hundred from the Don't Shoot PDX that began at PSU, and we set off towards our first stop, the Justice Centre. We stopped there for a long time, and there were a number of speakers, although I was too far away to hear what they were saying. I'm sure that immigration issues and the death of Freddie Gray were at the forefront. From there, we set off again, but there seemed to be some confusion as the throng of protesters decided which way to go. As it turns out, a smaller group was trying, and eventually succeeding, to divert the march away from its planned route.

When I realized what was happening, I followed the lead of those who wanted to blaze their own trail through the city, disrupting traffic, including Max lines, because I saw it as a powerful message — that the city is our city; that our strength is in our numbers and our solidarity; that these issues are important and people need to take notice; that we, the working people of the world, have the power to shut shit down in simple yet powerful acts of defiance — the rationale being that the inconvenience to a few commuters for one day pales in comparison to things like the struggles of immigrants or the lives of people of colour (as well as the homeless and mentally ill) routinely taken away by law enforcement. A popular chant was, "All night, all day, shut it down for Freddie Gray!" A black lady on one of the stopped buses was hanging out the door, high-fiving passing marchers.

The march eventually made its way towards the Burnside Bridge, with many of a mind to take the bridge. The police were ready, however, and lined up in the protesters' way while firetrucks were used as blockades. Most of the protesters held back and watched, unwilling to challenge the line of police. Riot cops quickly converged and used pepper spray on a small group that may have tried to break through. I was near the front right, and I saw the riot cops charge in and spray some of the marchers, which sent others running, but couldn't quite see what, if anything, instigated it. I did see a group wearing ski masks near the front, though, who may have played a role in that.

I retreated into a bar to use the restroom and down a quick shot of whiskey before returning and finding Molly. I saw one of the protesters, a young girl, having her eyes flushed with water, a victim of the pepper spray. After a somewhat tense and lengthy standoff, marchers started heading north, making their way to Naito Parkway and up Morrison before finally converging in front of the Wells Fargo across from Pioneer Square. On the way, I ran into Hyung, a local high school teacher, activist, and all-around incredible person, who was unhappy with the unplanned route and confrontations with police. He made a great point, which was that it not only endangered the large number of illegal immigrants participating in the march, but it'll possibly discourage them from participating in future actions and rallies.

In front of the Wells Fargo, a frequent target of ire during May Day protests, a group led chants and songs blasting the lack of justice for people of colour and the need to fight social and economic inequality. I ran into my union local's VP, and we chatted a bit before both he and Molly left as things seemed to be dying down. I stuck around as a separate group of marchers converged on Pioneer Square, joining up with ours. I left a little before police used flash grenades on protesters to, in the words of @PortlandPolice on Twitter, "allow police to safely withdraw from violent #MayDayPDX crowd."

In many ways, I think this May Day was a success. There was a great turnout, a lot of support from passersby and people stuck in traffic, and I think that it was a much-needed outlet for the frustrations of many, particularly people of colour. But because of several encounters with police and the inconvenience it caused some people, it may potentially scare away immigrants and others from future protests because they may feel unsafe, not to mention that it'll almost certainly generate a fair amount of negative press and sentiment among those who fail to understand why worker solidarity and direct action is so important.

re: baltimore: if you don't get it, educate yourself

Some people just don't get it. They see an eruption of violence in places like Baltimore or Ferguson and criticize the protestors rather than the socio-economic inequalities that condition them. They say things like, "I don't get it. Violence is counterproductive."

Of course you don't get it. You're probably not black (or homeless or living in abject poverty). You're probably not subject to racism on a daily basis. You're probably not a constant victim of racial profiling. You're probably not afraid that every cop you see is going to kill you. You probably don't have to do twice as much to prove that you're deserving of the same opportunities as someone with a different skin colour. You're probably not living in the omnipresent shadow of social inequality and oppression that's haunted your ancestors since they were forcibly brought to this country as slave labour.

They say that violence isn't the answer, that it's counterproductive, but they seem to fail to realize that riots are merely a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. As one friend of mine put it, "I hope that the disorder in Baltimore ends soon and that no one is hurt, but if this is what it takes to get people to start to look closer at a serious problem our nation is facing, it's our fault as a society for letting things get so bad in the first place." It's not like people haven't been trying to bring these problems to light in nonviolent ways since the early abolitionist movements of the late 1700s.

It drives me crazy how much of the criticism is directed towards the protestors and not the people (and system) that initiated the protests in the first place. Police across the country routinely engage in racial profiling and kill unarmed blacks, the mental ill, and the homeless at an alarming rate, and it's always the protestors who are accused of violence, as if murder isn't violent enough. And it's not just police brutality, but the underlying dynamics of oppression, including things like institutional racism and social inequality (yes, they exist), that are helping to fuel this anger.

I wish those people could see past their little slice of the American Dream™ and see the world through the eyes of a Freddie Gray, a Walter Scott, a Justus Howell, a Philip White, a Michael Brown, etc. Maybe then they'd understand what MLK Jr. meant when he said:

But at the same time, it is as necessary for me to be as vigorous in condemning the conditions which cause persons to feel that they must engage in riotous activities as it is for me to condemn riots. I think America must see that riots do not develop out of thin air. Certain conditions continue to exist in our society which must be condemned as vigorously as we condemn riots. But in the final analysis, a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice, equality, and humanity. And so in a real sense our nation's summers of riots are caused by our nation's winters of delay. And as long as America postpones justice, we stand in the position of having these recurrences of violence and riots over and over again. Social justice and progress are the absolute guarantors of riot prevention.

indiana's rfra act

This kind of nonsense makes it hard for someone like me to be religious:

What Makes Indiana's Religious-Freedom Law Different?

I consider myself a religious person. I love Buddhism. I love going to mass at Catholic and Orthodox churches. I'm interested in the poetry and mysticism of Sufism. I find that religion enriches my understanding of life. But the intolerance and oppressiveness of many who call themselves religious makes it hard for me to fully immerse myself in my spirituality and to be open about. I'm embarrassed, frankly, to be associated with people who think being gay is a sin and/or try to restrict women's reproductive rights.

Another thing that really annoys me is how many religious people in the West, particularly Christians, complain about how they feel persecuted, saying that it's hard to be openly religious these days because of growing secularism. Sure, there are a lot more people who are vocal about their issues with religion these days; but can you blame them? Just look at our history. If anyone is persecuted and oppressed in our society besides the poor (and Native Americans), it's the non-religious, women, and the LGBT community. And most of the persecution the religious do experience usually comes at the hands of other religious (e.g., Protestants vs. Catholics, etc.).

This country is still predominately a Christian nation. According to Pew, 78% of people in the US self-identify as Christian. The evidence is everywhere. It's on our money. It's in the Pledge of Allegiance. It's witnessed in the National Day of Prayer and every law banning same-sex marriage and restricting women's access to abortions and contraception. And despite their actions, most politicians profess to be Christian because it's damn near political suicide to be anything else (especially atheist). From a 2010 ABC News article:

[A] 2007 Pew survey found that 45 percent of Americans said they would be less likely to vote for a Muslim. 61 percent said they would be less likely to vote for an atheist. Only 25 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate. Sixteen percent said they would be less likely to vote for an Evangelical and 11 percent would be less likely to vote for a Jewish candidate.

The fact is, it's almost always those of religious faith who try to impose their ideas and morals onto the rest of society, not vice versa. Nobody's trying to force those against it to enter into a same-sex marriage; but those against it feel it's perfectly OK to impose their beliefs about marriage onto the rest of the country through gay marriage bans (and anti-sodomy laws before that). Nobody's trying to force religious people to have abortions or use contraception if they're against it; but it's religious people and institutions who are actively trying to limit women's access to both.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that a person should have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit so long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. I want to be free to explore and express my faith (or lack thereof) in whatever way I choose. But let's face it, these kinds of laws are more about legalizing discrimination than protecting religious freedom. Instead of more Religious Freedom Restoration Acts protecting religion from society, what we really need is a Freedom From Religion Act to protect society from religion.

romero

Today marks the 25th anniversary of Oscar Romero's assassination. Romero was a Roman Catholic bishop who was assassinated in El Salvador for speaking out against the economic inequality and political violence suffered by the El Salvadorian people.

He was a rather bookish conservative priest, and many of the more leftist priests and revolutionaries in El Salvador disliked him for it. But after seeing the violence and oppression first hand, his conscience wouldn't let him ignore it, and he began to speak out, especially in his homilies and weekly radio broadcasts, where he'd read off the names of those who were tortured, murdered, and disappeared by the military government, as well as revolutionary groups.

One of the things I admire about Romero is that his focus wasn't limited or sectarian; his focus was all the victims of violence and injustice. His words were the words of truth. He actions were those of love. And his life was one that mirrored the words of Jesus read last Sunday, "unless a grain of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains just a grain of wheat; but if it dies, it produces much fruit." Or in Romero's own words, spoken during his last homily just before he was assassinated on March 24, 1980:

Many do not understand; they think Christianity should not be involved in such things. But, to the contrary, you have just heard in Christ’s gospel that one must not love oneself so much as to avoid getting involved in the risks of life that history demands of us, and that those who try to fend off the danger will lose their lives, while those who out of love for Christ give themselves to the service of others, will live, live like the grain of wheat that dies, but only apparently. If it did not die, it would remain alone. The harvest comes about only because it dies, allowing itself to be sacrificed in the earth and destroyed. Only by undoing itself does it produce the harvest.

I've always found the example of people like Romero inspiring. It's hard to face the harsh realities of life, to open one's eyes and heart to them. And it's even harder trying to confront them with love and compassion rather than anger, and to truly serve others rather than retreat into the safety of complacency. It takes a level of bravery and conviction that I don't think I have but that I aspire to.

happy international women's day

Today marks the 104th anniversary of International Women's Day, a day dedicated to women and their contributions to the world.

At the beginning of the 20th century, when the first International Women's Day was observed, women were being pushed into the workforce in record numbers due to a combination of factors including rapid economic and population growth, widespread poverty, and the need for cheap labour to fuel the industrial capitalist machine, which in turn fuelled both their suffering and solidarity.

Women, who in many countries, including the US, still couldn't vote, were often working 10-12 hours a day in deplorable, sweatshop-style conditions, sometimes even being locked in factories until their work was done. And during this time, many of the largest and most militant strikes were organized by women fighting for shorter hours, better pay, safer working conditions, the right to unionize, the right to vote, and the right to fully participate in public life.

With all the progress that's been made, it can be easy to forget how bad things were and how far we've come in just the last 100 years alone. But I think it's important to remind ourselves every now and then of the contributions and struggles of women both past and present, not only to honour those that fought so hard to get us where we are today, but to remind ourselves of the work that's yet to be done. Women are still fighting for equal pay, for equal representation in leadership roles, and for reproductive rights, while fighting against patriarchy, domestic violence, and sexual assault.

So today, we celebrate and honour the contributions and struggles of women everywhere. Bread and Roses!

the contemplative vehicle

On newbuddhist.com today, a university student doing some research for an essay regarding contemporary Buddhism asked, Why does Buddhism appeal to you? My answer to such questions changes depending on the day, with certain aspects taking the forefront in my mind, and today was no different. Since recently starting Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, some of the things mentioned in the introduction and foreword have given me a new appreciation for what the Buddha taught from an evolutionary standpoint.

According to people like Dawkins, for example, there are two kinds of units in natural selection, the gene (as replicator) and the organism (as vehicle). And while the vehicle may be more or less altruistic, doing things out of compassion, generosity, love, etc., the genes are decidedly 'selfish.' In this context, deceit is arguably fundamental in animal communication, therefore, as Robert Trivers points out, "there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray - by the subtle signs of self-knowledge - the deception being practiced" (The Selfish Gene, xx).

Here we see that some of our motivations, influenced by a subtle form of selfishness (original sin?), lay hidden within us. This is akin to the Buddhist teaching that many of our actions are conditioned/coloured by greed, aversion, and delusion (i.e., selfishness and self-deception); and one of the Buddha's insights was that we can master these mental processes of conditionality in such a way as to 'go against the stream' of craving (tahna, which here can be seen as the influence of genetic selfishness on human psychology) and ultimately transcend craving altogether. As Dawkins puts it, "Our brains have evolved to the point where we are capable of rebelling against our selfish genes" (xiv); and the Buddha was one of the greatest revolutionaries in this regard.

So looking at it from the perspective of evolutionary biology, I'd say that it's the contemplative aspects of Buddhism that appeal to me the most. Although other religious traditions have their own forms of robust contemplativism, Buddhism has a very thorough and explicit form that I think cuts straight to the heart of the human condition. By practicing things like mindfulness meditation and constantly observing our actions via MN 61, we begin to remove this evolutionary veil of ignorance or avijja ('not knowing'), allowing us to see within the hidden depths of our psyche so that we can begin to condition changes in our behaviour and perception that lead to fuller awareness, self-knowledge and control, and liberation via transcendence of our genetic programming.

Today, Buddhism comes in all shapes and sizes, arising out of a peculiar Indic culture, replete with its own religious traditions and worldview, and further shaped by the diverse cultures in which it's taken root, giving rise to numerous schools and approaches. Much of it may appear to be outdated and superstitious to the scientifically minded; but I think the underlying goal, as well as the various practices and insights that characterize 'Buddhism,' have a lot to offer us in terms of understanding and transforming ourselves.