I LOVE comments. Please leave some even if they are brief half-formed ideas
that you aren't even sure you really believe. I just love comments.

Friday, January 09, 2009

What response would you support?

Let's imagine a terrorist organization in the United States. Let's say the terrorist are white supremacists who believe that the federal government of the United States is illegal, immoral and should be destroyed. Let's call them the Aryan Nation. What response would you hope the federal government would take to:

Aryan Nation members burns a cross in the yard of a Black family
Aryan Nation members throws a Molotov cocktail through the window of a Mexican restaurant.
Aryan Nation members kidnap and murder a police officer.

My thought in each case is that I would hope they would be apprehended by the police, tried by the state, and punished IAW our criminal laws. What if:

Montana elected Aryan Nation members to state legislature and stopped prosecuting members for crimes listed above
Aryan Nation members from Montana blew up a federal building in North Dakota killing dozens of people.
Montana Aryan Nation members use a hand held surface to air missile to shoot down an ATF helicopter.

Now, in these scenarios, I would expect the federal government to be involved in a coercive way. That is, using force associated with the Justice Department-Civil Rights Division and perhaps a federalized National Guard. But, would we be okay if uninvolved civilians, including children and the elderly, we killed? Not for me.

Montana legislature votes to leave the United States and a group of Aryan Nation members take over a missile silo.

According to my history book, this is when I am supposed to be okay with killing civilians. Would you be okay with it in this situation? What about before?

Wednesday, January 07, 2009

For Matt

Notice in this statue how the Bodhisattva's garment does not naturally curve around its legs. Don't you think this suggests a magical nature of the Bodhisattva?

Poking around at desire

I have found myself pondering desire as a result of several different trains of thought. The economic upheaval we're experiencing has its roots in desires of the consumers; and it would seem root cause solutions would involve both altering consumer desires to match realistic goals AND aligning what the market "desires" to match societies goals (Part of that excellent article in Harper's, "How to Save Capitalism". The folks at Harper's are good capitalists, though, because you can't read the article for free.)

Another path that has brought me to thinking about shaping desire is the suspicion that this might be a valuable and practical result of faith & religion. After preaching on prayer, I've come to realize that teaching and nurturing empathy is an important role of faith & religion. I wonder if shaping desire could be another.

Also, there's the New-Year's-resolutiony bit of it. What is the best way to overcome a desire that it would be best that you did not have? Maybe the desire is bad because it is impossible to achieve; maybe it's bad because it is unhealthy, as in the case of short term gratification but long term disappointment.

So, I'm faced with a choice about whether to get the salad or the deep fried burrito. I can think of at least three techniques ensuring that I get the salad. Reason: I'm on a diet that is the result of my decision to loose weight, the burrito has too many calories/points/carbs/whatever; Habit: I always order salads so I get a salad without really considering the burrito; Desire: I prefer salad to burrito. The recent not shocking study I heard about on NPR, summarized here, is that reason is a feeble tool to use against desire.

I think our Buddhist brothers and sisters have a more dramatic solution than aligning our desires to the good. I believe they would suggest we give up desire altogether. Consider this from the Dhammapada:
209. Giving himself to things to be shunned and not exerting where exertion is needed, a seeker after pleasures, having given up his true welfare, envies those intent upon theirs.

210. Seek no intimacy with the beloved and also not with the unloved, for not to see the beloved and to see the unloved, both are painful.

211. Therefore hold nothing dear, for separation from the dear is painful. There are no bonds for those who have nothing beloved or unloved.

212. From endearment springs grief, from endearment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from endearment there is no grief, whence then fear?

213. From affection springs grief, from affection springs fear. From him who is wholly free from affection there is no grief, whence then fear?

214. From attachment springs grief, from attachment springs fear. From him who is wholly free from attachment there is no grief, whence then fear?

215. From lust springs grief, from lust springs fear. From him who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?

216. From craving springs grief, from craving springs fear. From him who is wholly free from craving there is no grief; whence then fear?
Notice the passage not only counsels against craving but also affection and endearment. Hmm.

BTW, I experienced moderate frustration this morning because I was looking for my copy of the Dhammapada and couldn't find it. Ironic much.

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

A Question for the Year

How can one change what one wants?

Monday, January 05, 2009

Miserable start to the new year

Ug. I've been terribly sick for the last few days. I don't think I have anything interesting to say about anything. Like everyone I want to loose weight in the year to come (and like many a need to loose weight in the year to come). I was disappointed to see Richardson might be involved in a scandal, but happy to see him pull out of the nomination process before it was a big deal. I read a really good article in Harper's about "fixing" capitalism. That's about all for now.