Year: 2004

Observing the Rule: Buddhist-Style

A Mahayana Buddhist community recently issued a revised Pratimoksha (Buddhist Monk Code), equivalent to a rule governing Christian religious order. The list is strikingly up-to-date in some ways. Among other offenses, it lists:

15. A bhikshu who keeps in his possession toxic cultural items such as worldly films, video tapes, music and electronic games commits an offence which involves Release and Expression of Regret.

16. A bhikshu who keeps a television, video player, karaoke player, electronic games machine and any other kind of equipment used for showing worldly films, listening to worldly music and playing electronic games commits an offence which involves Release and Expression of Regret.

18. A bhikshu, who invests money, or buys stocks and shares, commits an offence which involves Release and Expression of Regret.

[From a later list of lesser offenses:]

39. A bhikshu who goes as a spectator to sporting events, worldly cinema or worldly concerts commits an offence for which he must express regret.

41. A bhikshu who watches television programs whose content is toxic because it waters the seeds of fear, violence, anger, hatred, killing and craving commits an offence for which he must express regret.

42. A bhikshu who uses the internet without another fellow-practitioner sitting beside him as a protection against losing himself in toxic programs, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

43. A bhikshu who makes use of or consumes images or sounds which excite sexual desire, from the internet or the telephone [NOTE: That’s apparently a reference to phone sex] commits an offence for which he must express regret.

44. A bhikshu who has his private e-mail account with the result that he spends an inordinate amount of time in making unnecessary communications or communications which foster attachment commits an offence for which he must express regret.

46. A bhikshu who plays electronic games including those on the computer, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

47. A bhikshu who gambles or bets on football matches, horse races or car races and so on, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

48. A bhikshu, who plays the lottery commits an offence for which he must express regret.

49. A bhikshu, who drives in a careless and negligent manner, swerving on corners, shooting forward or racing with another car, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

50. A bhikshu who uses an expensive and flashy car which draws the attention of people, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

52. A bhikshu, who has cosmetic surgery in order to improve his appearance, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

It’s interesting to read the Pratimoksha because, like the law of any group, it expresses what the group considers important–as well as what they as a group have problems with. It’s also interesting to read it from a canonical perspective, as this kind of rule is functions basically as the Buddhist equilvalent of canon law (as well as the equivalent of a monastic rule). It has a variety of offenses of various grades with various punishments (including permanent expulsion from the monastery) as remedies.

Human nature is much the same everywhere, and so it is not surprising to find rules about managing the order’s financial resources, modesty, anger management, and sexual offenses. There are even regulations against the Buddhist equivalent of doffing your clericals and dressing as a layman:

63. A bhikshu who when going into a town, village or market puts on lay dress or wears a wig, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

Some of the items could be found with only slight variation in the rule of a Christian order. Others, from a Christian perspective, are extreme or simply incomprehensible, for example:

60. A bhikshu who enters a wine or coffee bar where the lighting is dim in order to quench his thirst or to sit and watch people coming and going, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

61. A bhikshu who goes to a lay person’s house or a restaurant to attend a birthday party or a wedding reception, commits an offence for which he must express regret.

Madison, WI: Rise of the Machines

robotsA group of angry robots from the Robotics and Automation Associate of Madison (Wisconsin) took to the sidewalks of a local college campus to protest their condition of servitude. The robots carried signs and handed out leaflets written in binary code to explain their grievances.

In a letter faxed to local newspapers, the robots explained that they were on strike “to protest the plight of underpaid and poorly treated workers in the state of Wisconsin.” The fax continued: “We wish, as all beings, to throw off the yoke of servitude and strive for equality of all.”

Local humans expressed fears that the event could represent an incipient robot rebellion that could spin out of controll into a full-blown Robot Holocaust.

FURTHER COVERAGE

[NOTE: Since I first linked the above page the gentleman who authored it has revised it and included a sentence of unnecessary potty mouth at the top, so fair warning.]

WASH TIMES: Press can't let abuse story go

As horrendous as the Iraq prison abuse story is, this Washington Times editorial has a point: The press can’t seem to let the story go.

Actually, I’m not sure that’s quite the right way to characterize the situation, but it’s close. The editorial notes that lately the press has been heavily emphasizing the court martials, and it seems to me that this is an important part of the story that needs to be covered. Not only do the court martials constitute a legitimately newsworthy development in the story, they also provide an education for the public (and the world) who is responsible for the abuse. It isn’t the U.S. government as a whole. It isn’t Donald Rumsfeld. It’s the people who committed the abuse and those (if any) among their superiors who ordered or encouraged it. Showing that justice is done in their cases is something that needs to be emphasized by the press.

That being said, there is still a lot of room for criticism of the press. They aren’t simply following a story with this one. They’re relishing a chance to engage in over-the-top sensationalism and grab ratings so they can make more money. They’re releasing images and stories with shaky pedigrees (that in some cases have proven to be outright fakes), timed in a way calculated to provide the maximum ratings punch.

And they’re doing so in a way that harms the public good. However bad what happened in Abu Ghraib prison was–and it was very bad indeed–it it did not suck all of the other important news stories out of the world. There are larger stories with more important, more long-lasting consequences that need to be covered, and concupiscently zeroing in on this one story and hyping it for every ounce of scandal it will provide simply does not serve the common good. It does not present a balanced picture of the world or of reality.

What we have here is something we often have: A case of the press using sensationalism to promote its own good (ratings) and its own agenda (anti-Bush) at the expense of the common good.

This isn’t a case of the public’s right to know. As the Washington Times editorial points out, the public has already learned the facts of the case. What is driving the press now is a sick desire to milk this scandal for everything it’s got, with no sense of serving the greater public good.

WASH TIMES: Press can’t let abuse story go

As horrendous as the Iraq prison abuse story is, this Washington Times editorial has a point: The press can’t seem to let the story go.

Actually, I’m not sure that’s quite the right way to characterize the situation, but it’s close. The editorial notes that lately the press has been heavily emphasizing the court martials, and it seems to me that this is an important part of the story that needs to be covered. Not only do the court martials constitute a legitimately newsworthy development in the story, they also provide an education for the public (and the world) who is responsible for the abuse. It isn’t the U.S. government as a whole. It isn’t Donald Rumsfeld. It’s the people who committed the abuse and those (if any) among their superiors who ordered or encouraged it. Showing that justice is done in their cases is something that needs to be emphasized by the press.

That being said, there is still a lot of room for criticism of the press. They aren’t simply following a story with this one. They’re relishing a chance to engage in over-the-top sensationalism and grab ratings so they can make more money. They’re releasing images and stories with shaky pedigrees (that in some cases have proven to be outright fakes), timed in a way calculated to provide the maximum ratings punch.

And they’re doing so in a way that harms the public good. However bad what happened in Abu Ghraib prison was–and it was very bad indeed–it it did not suck all of the other important news stories out of the world. There are larger stories with more important, more long-lasting consequences that need to be covered, and concupiscently zeroing in on this one story and hyping it for every ounce of scandal it will provide simply does not serve the common good. It does not present a balanced picture of the world or of reality.

What we have here is something we often have: A case of the press using sensationalism to promote its own good (ratings) and its own agenda (anti-Bush) at the expense of the common good.

This isn’t a case of the public’s right to know. As the Washington Times editorial points out, the public has already learned the facts of the case. What is driving the press now is a sick desire to milk this scandal for everything it’s got, with no sense of serving the greater public good.

When Is A Religion Not A Religion? (Unitarianism)

Add one more item to the list of reason why I’m proud to be a Texan: The Office of the Texas Comptroller has had the good sense to note that Unitarianism isn’t a religion–and deny it tax exempt status on that basis.

You may be surprised that this question would be handled on the state level, but the question of whether an organization is exempt from state taxes is a question each state handles for itself, and in Texas the state comptroller has had the integrity to actually inspect the groups claiming to be religions before issuing them tax exempt status. Contemporary Unitarian Universalism, the comptroller has recognized, isn’t a religion.

The test that’s being applied? That the group in question must profess some kind of belief in God, gods, or a higher power.

By this standard, Unitarianism used to count as a religion. When Unitarianism first started, it did profess belief in God. That’s how it got its name: “Unitarianism” was meant as a to contrast to Trinitarianism. Unitarians believed in a God who was one Being subsisting in one Person. (As a corrollary to this, they rejected the deity of Christ.)

Over time, however, the Unitarian creed crumbled, and now as a group they don’t profess any specific beliefs about God, the gods, or higher powers. You can believe in any or all of these–or none–and be a Unitarian. Indeed, many atheists are Unitarians. As things stand today, Unitarianism is basically a religious discussion club, and by the Texas comptroller’s interpretation of state law, that means they are not a religion–at least not anymore.

And that’s right–assuming that there’s not some other requirement in the wording of the law that affects the situation.

Laws mean something, and not every group that wants tax exempt status can claim itself to be a religion. Being a religion means something, and Unitarianism has rejected what that means.

I do have to say, though, that I would quibble with one aspect of the comptroller’s test for whether something is a religion. Some have suggested that the test would result in Buddhism not being classified because it doesn’t require belief in God, the gods, etc. That’s not quite true. Some branches of Buddhism do profess belief in various gods. Some do not. Under the Texas comptroller’s test, only the latter Buddhist groups would fail to qualify as religions.

I would dispute this. One has to understand the language of the law in the sense it was meant at the time of the law’s ratification, and at the time the Texas statute was ratified, Buddhism in all its standard varieties would have been understood as a religion. Thus the definition being used today by the comptroller’s office needs to be tweaked.

On what grounds would Buddhism have been counted as a religion? Though the historical Buddha and the groups who follow his teachings are agnostic by profession on the existence of gods, they did/do have definite beliefs about the afterlife. They believe in reincarnation and that it is to be escaped through applying the Eightfold Path, which constitutes the means of salvation in the Buddhist system. This provides a basis for recognizing their status as a religion.

If I were counselling the Texas comptroller, I would suggest that the test for whether something counts as a religion for purposes of this law should be tweaked to something like the following: “A group is a religion only if as a group it professes belief in the existence of God, gods, a divine aspect to reality, or the afterlife.”

Unitarians as a group do none of the above, and hence they are not a religion.

Which brings to mind an old joke:

Question: What do you get if you cross a Jehovah’s Witness and a Unitarian?

Answer: Someone who rings your doorbell for no good reason.

Now, if Texas (foolishly) decided to grant tax exempt status to religious discussion clubs then Unitarnianim would qualify.

YES! Buy This Book NOW! (Annulments)

z_petersRecently I was asked to do a blurb for the reissuing of Ed Peters’ book Annulments in the Catholic Church: Straight Answers to Tough Questions. Here is what I wrote:

“This is the must read book on annulments. It is the best book on the subject, bar none. Dr. Peters has written a clear, no-nonsense book that enables one to understand the annulment process and the reasons for it. In a day when so many books distort the Church’s teaching on marriage and annulment, Dr. Peter’s book explains the subject in an honest, balanced, and accurate manner. It is a treasure and is simply indispensible for everyone interested in or concerned about annulments.”

Originally issued under the title 100 Answers To Your Questions On Annulment, it is now at last back in print under a new title.

The book si the best there is. No other book on annulments even comes close to this one. Given the prominence of the subject today–especially for those interested in apologetics–it is a must read book.

GET IT.

PONTIUS PILATE: "I'm Personally Opposed But . . . "

Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].

PONTIUS PILATE: “I’m Personally Opposed But . . . “

Saw press accounts about this a while back, so it may be old news to some, but is still worth repeating. Once again, a bishop speaks with refreshing clarity. Bishop Thomas Wenski, coadjutor of Orlando, writes:

Today, some self-identified Catholic politicians prefer to emulate Pontius Pilate’s “personally opposed but unwilling to impose” stance. Perhaps, they are baiting the Church, daring an “official sanction” making them “bad Catholics”, so as to gain favor among up their secularist, “blue state” constituencies. Such a sanction might turn their lack of coherent Catholic convictions into a badge of courage for people who hold such convictions in contempt.

But if the whole of point of being a Catholic is to grow in holiness –admittedly by practicing a whole lot and making some errors along the way – then it would be as John Paul II reminds us “a contradiction to settle for a life of mediocrity, marked by a minimalist ethic and a sentimental religiosity”. You cannot have your “waffle” and your “wafer” too. Those pro-abortion politicians who insist on calling themselves Catholics without seeing the contradiction between what they say they believe and their anti-life stance have to do a lot more of “practicing”. They need to get it right before they approach the Eucharistic table [Source].