Category: Other Religions

AP: Ultraorthodox Jews Worry Tiny Crustraneans Make Water Non-Kosher

I sympathize with the scrupulous impulse of some NYC Jews (who appear to be ultraorthodox rather than orthodox), who worry that the copepods in local tap water render the water non-kosher unless the little critters are filtered out (copepods being crustaceans and crustaceans being non-kosher).

Still, I’m glad that the question wouldn’t arise in Catholicism–not just because our food laws don’t work that way but also because in Catholic legal hermeneutics the law is to be observed in modo humano (i.e., “in a human manner”). If you have to examine your food with a microscope or high-power magnifying glass or other piece of technology to determine what something in your food is then we have been taken out of the realm of observing the law in a human manner and so we don’t need to worry about it.

It’s also probably good that the question doesn’t arise in Catholicism because if it did then people would accuse us of creating the law in order to economically advantage the makers of water purifiers–just as they accuse meatless Fridays of having been created by the pope to benefit Italian fishermen.

On the other hand, given the unflattering Jewish stereotypes floating around, NYC’s Jewish community may be subject to similar accusations.

Christian Arab Denies Christ To Save Life

One has the most extraordinary sympathy for the horrible, inhuman situation the man found himself in, but this was a violation of basic requirements of the gospel.

Fortunately, since the gentleman is probably Catholic or a member of an eastern non-Catholic Church, he at least should have access to the sacrament of reconciliation.

On the other hand, if the four Indians and the Italian mentioned in the story were asked if they were Christian before they were killed and honestly replied that they were then they should end up canonized.

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.

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.

Terrorism Hits Lowest Level In 34 Years!

Some good news in the War on Terror:

The fights in Iraq appear to be having a positive effect on the War on Terror. Osama bin Laden has had a lot of reasons to hit the bottle of Old Jihad lately. According to a State Department report released last month, terrorism hit its lowest level in 34 years in 2003. While terrorists killed 307 individuals that year, it was still a pronounced improvement from the 725 killed in 2002. There are two likely reasons for that dramatic reduction. Over 3,400 suspected members of al Qaeda have been locked up. Many others have likely gone to Iraq. While being engaged (and being detained, and being killed) by Coalition soldiers, those terrorists are not attacking Western civilians [Source].