Religious tolerance

[Chris James]

Religion often seems intolerant of the human rights of others. It breeds an image of hate while purporting to love the sinner. What utter garbage.

Christians don't speak for me on the subject of gay rights and equality, neither do Islamists or Jews. But here is someone who understands that freedom to think and feel is a human right:

http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2014/03/04/dalai-lama-marriage-equality-ok

Buddhism is not a religion that trifles with the lives of others, in fact it is not a religion at all but a way of life and thought. It's fair for the Dalai Lama to say that Buddhists should abstain from homosexuality, that's one of the tenants if you embrace the ideals of Buddhism. But even if you were a gay Buddhist you would not be hated by these people.

I agree, if that is your thing then it's up to you. Major religions could learn something from this man.

[The Pecman]

I'm a big fan of Buddhism, and read a couple of books on it a few years ago. If I had to identify with any philosophy or belief, that's what I'd side with. 90% of it is just common sense, if you ask me.

[Nigel Gordon]

It is wrong to assume that religions are anti-gay de facto. That is only generally true of the monotheistic religions of the Middle East and their descendants. In many religions homosexuality is accepted and in some even seen as a sign of favor from the gods, for instance in some Native American traditions and amongst Northern European Shamans. I'm a Pagan but have studied Buddhism extensively and read Buddhist Philosophy and Buddhist Psychology as part of one of my degrees. An important concept in Buddhist teachings is moderation in all things, that means never going to the extreme. Any homophobic behavior is by definition an extreme, therefore, not in accordance with Buddhist teachings.

Incidentally there have been Buddhist sects that have actively promoted homosexuality as a desirable lifestyle. The argument put forward was that if you had to indulge in sex you were better off having a homosexual relationship which would not result in another child being born and condemned to the Wheel of Life. This type of approach is found in some of the Chan Buddhist sects that arose amongst the Samurai in Japan (where Chan is known as Zen). There was also a view that sex with a woman drained a man of vitality whilst he could gain vitality having sex with another male. This view is also found in some Daoist teachings and it seems to have come into the Chan/Zen teachings from Daoism.

The anti-homosexual legislation which was introduced in Japan in 1880 (repealed in 1887) was brought about very much through the influence of American Missionaries. It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church had been in Japan since the 16th century and never pushed for such laws.

In most (if not all) animistic religions homosexuality is seen as a sign of some special status for the homosexual party in their relationship with the gods. There are some religious roles that can only be undertaken by homosexual men or women. There is some thought that this might have also have been the rule at one time within the European Traditons and that things like "a woman who has not known a man" as required of the vestal virgins, do not in fact refer to virgins but lesbians.

[Cole Parker]

I think by this reasoning, Des must be the most vital man around.

C

[Cynus]

This view is also found in some Daoist teachings and it seems to have come into the Chan/Zen teachings from Daoism.

As a Taoist I can verify this. It was one of the draws for me toward the philosophy.

[The Pecman]

It is wrong to assume that religions are anti-gay de facto. That is only generally true of the monotheistic religions of the Middle East and their descendants. In many religions homosexuality is accepted and in some even seen as a sign of favor from the gods, for instance in some Native American traditions and amongst Northern European Shamans. I'm a Pagan but have studied Buddhism extensively and read Buddhist Philosophy and Buddhist Psychology as part of one of my degrees. An important concept in Buddhist teachings is moderation in all things, that means never going to the extreme. Any homophobic behavior is by definition an extreme, therefore, not in accordance with Buddhist teachings.

What if I just do it until I need glasses?

[DesDownunder]

I once heard a Zen Master say that homosexuality was not something that Buddhism commented on, but as all sex was something that could detract one from realising enlightenment then sex should be avoided. The sexual act itself, does not attract condemnation in Zen, and as sex is natural the Master did not see homosexuality as 'wrong-doing', merely a distraction from the path.

Other Buddhists are not always so tolerant. However, from folklore we can deduce that an older monk and a younger novice may well enter into a Hellenic type of mentoring relationship. The Samurai have a deeply hidden custom of such relationships regarding it as hidden love akin to the Oscar Wilde era's Love that Dare Not Speak Its Name.

It is interesting that Alan Turing turned to Buddhism in spiritual form, rather than in religious belief. Many would consider that as an entirely appropriate and acceptable use of Buddhist philosophy.

It is somewhat intriguing to consider that achieving Satori as a constant awareness of reality, is closer to psychological analysis as described with such clarity by Erich Fromm in his essay, Zen Buddhism and Psychoanalysis. In that case Fromm is careful to point out that the aim of psychoanalysis is to 'cure' the distress of a mental condition, whilst Zen's aim is to find Satori (enlightenment, for want of a better description.) The similarity is that mental madness is defined as not being able to tell what is real from the unreal; whereas, at its core, Zen is in search of realising an ever-changing reality.

In dissent with the idea that sex, whether it is homosexual or heterosexual, is an impediment to realising enlightenment, I think sex can be a catalyst in the realisation of reality. When that sex is the result of love between two lovers, then the cosmos and all it contains becomes a heightened reality; it becomes the essence of life, of love giving life a clarity brighter than any sun.

There are those who claim simply, that such love is blind, but I say that the pain of life is the price we pay for the consciousness of our affinity with reality and that love is part of that reality. Love teaches us, even after it has gone that to be conscious of reality, in awe of the wonder and the sadness of all that we perceive at every moment, is what being in love with life is all about, but that requires a dedication to the truth of reality not easily maintained.

Most of the other religions regard sex as a sin entwined with fear into a web of threats to control the masses. It is the homosexual's self-questioning about their lives that leads to questioning life itself, and that process so often replaces the religious individual with a newly born atheist/agnostic.

And that friends is the reason the extremist religions fight against homosexuality and same sex marriage being accepted. They see our questioning as losing their authority to the freedom of our individual autonomy, setting an example for others to follow. For once, they're probably correct.

[JamesSavik]

Odin only requires courage. He doesn't care who you sleep with.

[Cole Parker]

I once heard a Zen Master say that homosexuality was not something that Buddhism commented on, but as all sex was something that could detract one from realising enlightenment then sex should be avoided.

I'm sure you realize that this flies in the face of more modern psychology which tells us sex is one of our most basic needs, and necessary if we're ever to reach our highest personal fulfillment.

I'd probably equate fulfillment to enlightenment. Psychologists have several words for it, but I think they come down to the same thing. And I think it's rather apparent you can't have had enlightenment as a human being if you haven't had sex. And I don't think once or twice counts. A healthy human is one who has a healthy sex life. And health is another part of being fulfilled.

[DesDownunder]

I don't think fulfilment is quite the same as enlightenment. Enlightenment is best thought of as a process, a continuing experience that in itself is fulfilling if we are consciousness of it. The thing is we may not be conscious of it; all of it, or even some of it.

You can't have enlightenment; enlightenment is a state of being, not of having.

Most modern psychology is only interested in behavioural control for societal purposes. Psychotherapeutic analysis is almost a lost art because it takes a long time to effect a complete therapy. Freud's simplistic approach of just informing the patient of the origins of a problem has been shown to be inadequate because the patient must work through the process of realisation of the cause.

Medically speaking, in the physiological sense, if not for the sake of our psyches, sex is both natural and necessary. I was merely reporting the attitudes I had experienced on the subject of sex and Buddhism. I usually get attacked for pointing out that the male's sole biological purpose on the planet is to ejaculate. It isn't even necessary to impregnate or satisfy anyone...ejaculation will do for most males.

However, we are not limited to just ejaculating, we also have a cognitive process which provides us with many wonderful experiences including creation and participation in the lives of other beings. If sex was thought of as getting in the way of such experiences, then it was not unreasonable to abandon it as a distraction. My argument was to establish the idea that, as I said above, " I think sex can be a catalyst in the realisation of reality." Where reality is that ability to continuously perceive the truth of existence to the full, but that is not fulfilment, it is enlightenment.

The human condition can exist in the creative and participatory sense even if some part of the physical body is not functioning properly, or at all.

The physically challenged can still function, even the mentally challenged can appreciate existence. From the point of view of being enlightened, sex is not necessary, but I do not think it is necessary to forbid it in order to be enlightened.

Sex has many levels, it can be pure physical release, libidinal lust, and transgression with violence. It takes some effort and time for us to realise that sex can also be the expression of our love for one another, each other, or just one other. Lovers who can express their love for each other sexually are in my opinion experiencing at least a moment of what it is like to be enlightened, and that, I agree, is fulfilling.

A truly loving god would have made it mandatory for such love to be experienced by each of us at least once instead of those silly and unnecessary laws about thou shalt or shalt not do this or that.

As I implied rather clearly I believe, questioning these things leads us to being religious, not with a god, but in the sense of being true to ourselves in the reality of our existence.

[Cole Parker]

I think you're quibbling. I think we mean the same thing with enlightenment or fulfillment. I think we're talking about the highest level of being a human can achieve. If you only mean it mentally, I think that is shortsighted and diminishes a man, because we can be more than our intellect or perceptions. If we're talking about the highest state of being we can reach, why do you limit it? We have several senses; why can't we achieve a high degree reaching toward perfection using all of them? Why are you limiting it to thought processes?

I think you're way off base in saying psychologists are principally concerned with behavioral control for purposes of smoothing the rough edges of societal interactions. They're concerned with many things other than that. In face, I'd say that's an area that may have the least activity of all in their field. They study how people think, how they behave, how when they go off the tracks they can be helped back on them. Behavior control is very controversial; behavior studies have a much different focus.

I still say, you can't take sex away from a man and then pretend he's at the pinnacle of mankind. He may have some great attributes, some unique insights, but he certainly is in no way suited to be giving advice on how to live our lives to the rest of us.

[DesDownunder]

There is a general disagreement on all the issues here, but I am sure we both feel misunderstood.

I can offer no further clarification.

These things happen from time to time, and we are left without the means to discuss further when the words fail us.

[Cole Parker]

As you may have realized, I like this kinds of philosophical discussions. I also love arguing in a genteel, civilized manner where people don't get defensive and simply and clearly expound their pertinent points.

And the fact we were arguing two slightly different things didn't bother me at all.

C

[DesDownunder]

I'm pleased about that, Cole. At least we agree about that.

As you may have realized, I like this kinds of philosophical discussions. I also love arguing in a genteel, civilized manner where people don't get defensive and simply and clearly expound their pertinent points.

And the fact we were arguing two slightly different things didn't bother me at all.

C

[Chris James]

And not to change the subject but point it in a slightly different direction:

You knew this was coming, I certainly did. I managed to leave my comments at the end of the article:

http://theweek.com/article/index/257628/who-are-the-real-gay-marriage-bigots

[Cole Parker]

I looked for your comments, Chris, but didn't find them in the pages and pages of comments I looked through. Unless you used a different name, like Joe Blow -- but his remarks definitely wouldn't have come from you -- or Cosmic Hulk. I could envision that label being apt.

That definition in the article of marriage "being between a man and a woman with a procreative aspect" would certainly restrict infertile people from marrying, or older ones. So it seems to me to be a definition that was developed for an obvious purpose: not to define marriage, but to define marriage in a particular way so as to prevent gay people from doing it.

C

[DesDownunder]

After constant, "load more comments" and searching for Chris James "on this Page" each time, I eventually found Chris' comment, and I agree with him.

I think that Chris points out that the marriage contract is a civil one, protected by the Constitution, and religious belief therefore, cannot trump the Constitution in this matter. Chris also notes that participating in the fantasy of the religious world is protected by the same constitution.

It is this latter point that seems to me to confound so many religious adherents. Just because the Constitution protects the right to a belief or an opinion, doesn't mean that other people's rights have to be subject to those opinions and beliefs.

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, the situation that the article doesn't appear to address is the human right issue.

If we claim, as I do, that same sex marriage falls under the human rights equality issue, and the religious claim that their objection to same sex marriage is conscientious, then on the surface we have a conflict of opinions on human rights and conscientious objection.

Yet, this seems to be addressed in The Declaration of Independence:

"...certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness-"

In particular, the pursuit of happiness is an unalienable right. How then can we address this seeming conflict between letting the religious pursue their happiness to deny same sex couples the pursuit of their happiness to marry each other.

So far the judges seem to be making judgement based on the reality of human rights of individuals to marry each other regardless of the religious beliefs of others. Note, that this does not stop the religious from believing whatever they want, they just cannot impose their belief (conscientious or otherwise) on others.

The article linked above seems more intent on excusing the bigotry that transgresses the right to pursue happiness through the secular civil contract of same sex marriage.

[Cynus]

On this note, this is what the Dalai Lama did recently.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/dalai-lama-voices-support-gay-marriage-n46906

[Cole Parker]

I think those judges have it exactly right: The right to marry whomever you want doesn't affect the beliefs of others who have a constitutional right to those beliefs. They can continue to believe what they want, and I can continue to marry whomever I want. Well, my partner might object, but that's another matter.

[DesDownunder]

Here in the video at this link, Larry King asks the Dalai Lama about gay marriage:

I was not really surprised by the Dalai Lama's answer.