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.

all lives matter

Suffice it to say that I find torture to be beyond the pale, and I don't think we should be doing things like rectally feeding anyone as "a means of behavior control." But what concerns me more than the torture itself is the lack of outrage at such glaring inhumanity and injustice, even after the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report describing some of the techniques used, including the aforementioned form of sexual assault, and the fact that 1/5 of the detainees were "wrongfully held."

It's especially frightening to me that a recent PEW poll shows a majority of those polled believe the CIA's methods were justified, and that the information gleaned helped prevent terror attacks despite the fact that the report suggests the exact opposite (assuming that's even a viable justification in the first place). This should engender as much public outrage, in my opinion, as the events in Ferguson, New York, etc. The more so, I think, because each is an concrete example of abuse of state power characterized by a lack of accountability. The two are intertwined—they're multiple heads of the same political-economic hydra.

Unfortunately, many people feel they deserve to be put into cages and tortured, even though many were despite being innocent (or at least not proven guilt of any crime). And many doubt the validity of the report, even though people 'in the know' like Dick Cheney are going around defending some of the previously unknown torture techniques like rectal feeding described in the report. Worst of all, many are indifferent to such acts of cruelty.

What complicates matters is that it's part of a broader, systematic problem that's beyond any one individual, making it difficult to face in the first place. I know when I often ignore the news, for example, it's because it's usually overwhelming and I feel helpless to do anything about it except express my impotent outrage on social media. But seeing the responses from the growing #blacklivesmatter movement and others like it, I think people can collectively make a difference and force changes to be made, especially if they're able to connect the dots and realize that these issues are just symptoms of a bigger, systematic problem.

power to the people

I started walking home from the Holiday Ale Fest and ran straight into a march protesting the decision not to indict the officer involved in the murder of Eric Garner, as well as the decision not to indict the officer involved in the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown. All those involved were rallying against the recent decisions and the societal issues underlying them.

I don't know where they originated from, but I found myself in the front as the group marched from Pioneer Square to the Moda Center, chanting along the way various slogans such as, "No justice, no peace," "Who's streets? Our streets," "Who's lives matter? Black lives matter," etc.

It just felt good, right; and being near the front, I started screaming at the top of my lungs, raising my fist and raging against the system with all my being. All that was going through my mind was, "This shit has to stop, and I have to be on the front line against racism, sexism, and every other kind of discriminatory 'ism' there is. Enough is enough!"

I don't know if anything I do, or ever have done, will actually make a difference; but I know I'm at least willing to try. I'm not afraid to add my voice to the millions crying out for the same thing: Equality. Justice. Peace. An end to discrimination and oppression in all of its forms. If at some point we're not a part of the solution, we by default become part of the problem.