Generosity

"When you hammer a nail into a board and accidentally strike your finger, you take care of the injury immediately. The right hand never says to the left hand, "I am doing charitable work for you." It just does whatever it can to help--giving first aid, compassion and concern. In the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, the practice of dana, generosity, is lik this. We do whatever we can to benefit others without seeing ourselves as helpers and the others as the helped. This is the spirit of non-self."

-Thich Nhat Hanh
Living Buddha, Living Christ

Empathy

So this has been floating around facebook in regard to the earthquake/tsunami that ripped Japan apart:

It's not often I speak about my beliefs and I know a lot of people don't agree with me but..

Mother nature is a force to be reckoned with. She is the one thing that no human being can control. You can only abuse and beat her so much before she will retaliate. Earth quakes, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, etc. She's one pissed off mama and anyone knows you do not piss off a mama.

Lest there be any confusion - the above is pure, unmitigated horseshit.

File this away under "the-other-side-has-anti-science-garbage-too." It's rare, but it happens. much like the anti-vaccers, the folks who spout this nonsense are callous idiots.

It was an earthquake. It was not malicious, or intentional, or brought about by supernatural forces to punish anybody you don't happen to like for doing things you think they ought not be doing. It was naturally occurring, and we know how and why it happened. We have an explanation, and any speculation on "why" it happened that does not include phrases like "thrust faulting" or "subduction zone interface plate boundary" are unnecessary and cruel. We know why earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, lightening, floods, avalanches, volcanoes, blizzards, seasons, rain, snow and sunshine happen. They're amazing, and they inspire awe, but they aren't mysterious.

But let us assume for a moment that there is some supernatural force driving these events. Let's deconstruct the quote above based on that premise.

I can only assume if nature, or the Earth, is a "mother" that her "children" are the organisms living on her. This quote bestows on her not only sentience but also intent. Based on that, what sort of mother slaughters some of her children as retaliation for anything? The very notion means that you believe in a being that is not only aware of its actions but is also psychotic. And apparently you do so willingly and happily.

And these aren't the days of pantheons full of gods and goddesses who were intentionally depicted as horrifically twisted and cruel. Whether you believe in a god who casts swaths of his metaphorical children into hell to be tortured for eternity or an Earth Mother who slaughters literal children for actions they have no say in or control over (drilling, deforestation, over population, etc) your focus of worship is awful and sociopathic. And yet that isn't the framing it's given. The framing is that it does those terrible things and it loves you and you love it.

I guess it just doesn't love any of those other people who're suffering. So, by extension, why should you?

If the thing you believe, whatever it is, means that when you see suffering your inclination is not to mourn and seek ways to help assuage pain, but rather to point out that perhaps those in agony may deserve it somehow or brought it on themselves in any way, then something is very wrong with your worldview.

Your beliefs have eaten a hole in your brain where empathy should be.

In case anyone was worried, the Bizarro Christians and fascistspatriots are getting on board with this kind of sociopathy as well.

ETA: Glen Beck has gotten in on it as well. Of course, being an insufferable tool is kind of his modus operandi.

Japan

Relief and aid:

Google peoplefinder tool. They also have crisis response information up.

Things to consider as you donate. It breaks down what's best, when, how to tell who's reputable, and where to report sites that pop up asking for donations that seem to be fraudulent.

Yes, Japan is asking for aid - the Gizmodo article about texting the redcross was updated.

Shelterbox: people are going to need shelter more than just about anything else.

Redcross: that page allows you to specify where you want your donation to go. You can also text REDCROSS to 90999 to donate $10 from your phone.

Doctors without borders: they're generally some of the first folks on the scene at disasters such as this, and they always need help and donations

Save The Children has set up a fund specifically for earthquake/tsunami relief.

International medical Corps: you can also text MED to 80888 from any mobile phone to give $10.

Huffpo has a roundup of other aid links.



News:

CNN: video round up and live blog.

Shakesville: roundup and open thread.

Streaming video. (Japanese)

MSNBC coverage.



Science:

NOAA: Modeling of the earthquake and tsunami. There's a larger version of the video at Gizmodo.

BBC: What happened at Fukushima Daiichi.

Big think has more information on the nuclear plant incident, including a video

EERI: history of Japan's recorded earthquakes

USGS: how earthquakes work (for kids) - also information for adults.

More information on what causes tsunamis.

Imagine No Religion

I've always loved John Lennon.

He was murdered just before midnight December 8th, 1980, and I was born early December 9th, 1980. I still have the newspapers from that day. Something profoundly wonderful was leaving this world as I was coming into it, and that's always been strange for me.

I have a bit of an obsession with The Beatles, and with Lennon in particular. I even enjoy his solo albums and his collaborations with his wife, Yoko Ono. I identify with them and their work quite a bit.

Contrary to his most widely known solo work, however, I can't imagine no religion and I honestly have no desire to.

That isn't to say I don't imagine a world without religious persecution, oppression, violence, dogma or control.

A world without religion is as desirable to me as a world without history, literature, or art. These stories are significant to our development as a species. The ways in which humans have attempted to contemplate or explain the world around them provides insight into our nature. We tell stories, sing, paint, dance, think, write, build, design, explore, and tell more stories. Some of those stories become songs. Some of them are molded into sculpture or expressed through brushes and watercolor. Some of them are choreographed into ballets. Some become novels or comics or movies.

And some of them are passed along, scooped up, bound together and they become a religion.

The culture of the time influences it, and it influences the people and places where it's taught and practiced. Like any good form of expression it grows and adapts, twisting in on itself and back out again. Religion influences and is influenced by art, philosophy, and every other aspect of the human experience.

I never think "What if religion didn't exist?" What I imagine is a world in which we treat the traditions, philosophies, stories, cultural contexts, parables, poems, rules, psalms, doctrines, and silly hats with the same sort of reverence that we treat art. As it stands, religion is the extension of hierarchical power when it should be an extension of self-expression.

One/The Body's Grace - Ballet Austin
Photography by Hannah Neal, Amitava Sarkar, Tony Spielberg, Farid Zarrinabadi, Manda Levy

The ballet world has a history that's both exciting and provocative to anyone who's a gigantic nerd like me. The undercurrent of precision behind the softness of the Russian ballet contrasts with the velvety elegance of French ballet, the sleekness of neo-classical, or the freedom of contemporary. The forms pull from each other, with the more modern techniques relying heavily on a foundation laid out by the traditional schools. The rules and parameters of each are distinct, with strict lines and impeccable standards to which one must adhere. The various schools drew heavily from the culture in which they were embedded, and in turn helped shape the community around itself. Russian ballet, in particular, has been an integral part of the cultural framework of its country of origin for the entirety of its existence. Adherents to a particular technique are savagely loyal, and alteration is slow and intentional. Thousands have devoted their lives to the study, practice, development, and critique of their particular school of ballet and relations between the students or masters of respective forms can be strained or even incendiary.

And yet, no wars have been waged in the name of dance. Students of the Vaganova method have never executed artists at The Royal Ballet. Dancers often experience their art as the highest emotional expression possible, yet that passion doesn't manifest itself as violence.

I hope this doesn't come across as an attempt to diminish someone's faith by way of a comparison to dance. Honestly, I think there's no higher compliment to afford something than to call it art. I think religious and artistic expression are both core to our existence as humans. I also think that it's possible to divorce the emotional, social, and spiritual benefits of religion from its nasty role as a form of cultural despotism. In fact, I think that it's likely the only way to end religious violence. When religion is a form of self-expression that allows us to explore our relationship to the universe in a way that can be shared but is also profoundly personal then there's nothing to live or die for. It's a form of communication meant to help us relate our experiences to one another, not separate ourselves from anyone who doesn't conform to our ideals.

That's what I think, in any case. And I don't think I'm the only one.

The More Things Change...

On the topic of soap-bubble faith and lashing out at anything that threatens it, there's a well known example in recent U.S. history - although the entire story has been a bit glossed over as time has rolled on.

Most Americans are vaguely familiar with the comment John Lennon made saying that The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus" however, not many have ever read the actual quote:

"Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn't argue about that; I'm right and I'll be proved right. We're more popular than Jesus now; I don't know which will go first—rock 'n' roll or Christianity. Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. It's them twisting it that ruins it for me"

The context was an interview by a close friend of The Beatles, Maureen Cleave. The quote and containing article were met with no controversy in the UK when it was published as the question of declining church membership was a relatively benign topic of discussion in their country at that time.

Five months later, however, Texas and Alabama radio stations picked up the story from the cover of a teenybopper magazine called Datebook. This was 1966, and the American South was already a powder keg. A Beatle Boycott went into effect, meaning of course that stations talked about them and the quote incessantly. Records were smashed or burned. Most people are vaguely aware of that part of the story, as well.

One of the things most Americans today are unaware of is the fact that the Klu Klux Klan was heavily involved in this protest.

Part three has an interview with the klan's imperial wizard at the time. 10 points to Gryffendor for noticing him disparaging British Socialism*, and warning that it will naturally lead to cooooooooooommmunism!

Ooga booga, as it were.

If you only have time for one video, watch number three. Two and three have the bits of the controversy most forgotten:

_______________________

*The United States has very poor long term memory. All of the cries of socialism infiltrating the current political discussion have a direct link back to opposition to the civil rights movement. The fact that it's reaching a fever pitch during the first term of a PotUS who happens to be a person of color is no coincidence.

Soap bubbles

I have a tattoo on the back of my neck from when I visited Australia in 2005. It's generally covered by my hair, so people rarely see or comment on it. Someone recently did notice it when I was working out and had my hair up.

Her: "My friend who lives across the street is Australian."

Me: "Oh?"

Her: "Well, she's not really my friend anymore. She was, but, you know. I'm friendly, I like everybody, but you don't mess with my kids."

That seemed a reasonable position. Being a new mother I've not yet had the experience first hand, but most of my friends with children have retreated from a relationship due to the disregard of some kid-related boundary. The woman to whom I was speaking seems to be very kind from what I know of her. She's quite pleasant about everyone and everything, usually upbeat, and I don't think I've ever heard her genuinely complain about anything. The story she told wasn't at all what I was expecting. She continued:

"Well, my kid would go over there sometimes, and once he was playing a video game with some guy who had on a 'Jesus Rocks' t-shirt. My neighbor starts saying..."

At this point I must note that she broke into a pretty fair fake Aussie accent. I was impressed

"...Ohhhhh, I don't believe in Jeeeeesus like that. I just think he was like Elvis or whatever."

I stared at her blankly for a moment, waiting to hear the rest of the story. I think she noticed my confusion, because she began to elaborate.

"I don't care what people believe, or whatever, but my kids were raised to believe Jesus is Our Lord, and we may not go to church, really, but that's how they were raised and what they believe. My son was very disturbed and came home asking me 'Mom, why would she say that about The Lord?'"

From there she explained that she spoke to her neighbor and requested that such things not be said in front of her son anymore. The neighbor apparently launched into a tirade about how her kid is a giant brat - which isn't really a mature response and seems to be how those kinds of parental interactions go all too often. In reality, it sounds like the friendship ended because the neighbor went on the defensive rather than respecting this woman's boundaries. The boundary she was attempting to establish perplexes me, though.

Being a parent is difficult, and trying to navigate how to introduce the world to your kid can be intimidating. I can understand wanting to limit your child's exposure to things that may upset or disturb them. I plan on limiting my son's exposure to violent imagery, for instance, until he's old enough to process it. The bit that has me flummoxed is the notion that people having different beliefs is somehow disturbing or upsetting. This, to me, seems like a missed opportunity to have a discussion about diversity of belief. There are people in this world who don't believe anything about Jesus at all. A lot of them, in fact. This kid will eventually encounter them, and I'm not entirely sure how this mother will expect him to react when he does.

I'm certainly not advocating this as an opportunity to proselytize either direction as the circumstance was likely inappropriate. From what little information I was given it sounded like the neighbor merely mentioned her point of view in passing. Additionally, my understanding is that the boy is currently in or very close to middle school. I'm not sure how he was even able to avoid the existence of non-christians before this point.

The tendency Bizarro Christians have to want to avoid acknowledging the existence of things they disagree with is, frankly, disrespectful to everyone involved. They home school their children, or send them to private religious schools. They shelter them as much as possible, and then just sort of release them into the world completely unequipped to deal with all of the new and exciting adventures on which they’ll embark. This transition is never a graceful one, and usually results in the sheltered child being traumatized and lashing out at whatever or whomever they encounter that they don’t understand.

This is one of the many reasons young christians give most people the impression that they’re giant douchebags.

This also manifests itself in a much more sinister way. The Bizarro Christian legislators want to simply erase or even violently destroy anything they’re uncomfortable with. Their sights are currently set on – in no particular order - science, women, GLBTQs, Muslims, immigrants (or anyone sort of brownish or who speaks Spanish), the poor, and the sick. They also have their sights set on teachers and unions, but I find that to be an extension of their distaste for science, women, poor people and people of color.

I wish the GLBTQ community could unionize, just to give republicans an aneurysm.

The notion of being “in the world but not of the world” is quite popular among American evangelicals. When I was a teenager, this essentially meant eschewing rock music for incredibly insipid christian facsimiles. What it appears to have become is a desire to separate out everything in the world that could possibly threaten or contradict Bizarro Christianity as a paradigm and then dismiss, ignore or destroy those things.

As much damage as they do, Bizarro Christians cannot destroy the rest of the world – at least, not anytime soon. Hiding from or smashing anything that makes you consider your faith on a more sophisticated level weakens it. This soap-bubble faith that must be protected from the rest of the world at all costs simply won’t survive in the long term. Unfortunately, it’ll do quite a bit of damage in the interim.

International Women's Day

"Are we bringing the service of the Sangha and the church to those who suffer, to those who are discriminated against politically, racially, and economically?

The Buddha accepted women into his Sangha and they became teachers, transmitters of precepts, playing the same roles as the monks. Jesus also taught women freely. The first person Jesus revealed Himself to after His resurrection was a woman. Are we allowing women to be ordained priests and teachers?"

-Thich Nhat Hanh
Living Buddha, Living Christ