Humanist Flavors

by Edd Doerr

Like Ben & Jerry's ice cream, Humanism comes in more than one flavor. The principal ones are Secular Humanism and Religious Humanism. The first is represented by WASH, the Center for Inquiry, and similar groups, the second by the over one thousand Unitarian Universalist, Ethical Society and Humanistic Jewish congregations in the US. Some Humanists are comfortable with either term, some prefer one term over the other, and some prefer to leave their Humanism unmodified, as is the view of the International Humanist and Ethical Union. The differences between the two are mainly matters of semantics and/or style and/or organization, not basic philosophy.

Secular Humanism's most well known explicator is philosopher Paul Kurtz, whose voluminous writings over decades need no introduction here. Religious Humanism is more defuse. Its most well known advocate is William R. Murry, who was president and dean of the Meadville Lombard Theological School in Chicago from 1997 to 2003 and before that minister of the large River Road Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Bethesda, Maryland, for many years. Both Kurtz and Murry, by the way, have been associated with Americans for Religious Liberty, which was founded in 1982 by Humanist leaders Edward Ericson and Sherwin Wine, and which I have headed since 1982.

Bill Murry is the author of two important books on Religious Humanism: Reason and Reverence: Religious Humanism for the 21st Century (Skinner House, 2007, 183 pp) and Becoming More Fully Human: Religious Humanism as a Way of Life (Religious Humanism Press, 2011, 217 pp -- may be ordered from HUUmanists, Box 185202, Hamden, CT 06518, for $16 plus $4 for s&h).

Murry's and Kurtz's Humanism both evolved from the 1933 Humanist Manifesto and are compatible with 1973's Humanist Manifesto II, which was mainly written by Kurtz. It might be noted that among the 34 signers of the 1933 Manifesto were philosopher John Dewey and 17 Unitarian ministers, and that among the throng of scientists, writers and others who signed the 1973 manifesto were a number of Unitarian Universalist ministers, Ethical Society leaders and Humanistic Judaism advocates. (Disclosure: I was one of the original signers of the 1973 Manifesto.) We followers of Darwin can appreciate the evolution of Humanism into varieties.

Murry's two books comprehensively cover every facet of Humanism as a lifestance, from the scientific naturalism that undergirds it to its applications to every aspect of everyday living. They avoid the rather sterile "Johnny-one-note" stuff of so much of the popular atheist writing of recent years, preferring to accentuate the positive.

Murry, like Kurtz, merits a wide readership.

Edd Doerr (arlinc@verizon.net; arlinc.org)

Challenges of Extending Inter-Faith Conversations

by Gary Berg-Cross

I generally like conversation and the free exchange of ideas. There is a pragmatics to it, as Albert Einstein noted, "the free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life." Recognizing this conversation itself becomes a value to individuals and groups. It is not hard to believe that in the long run the public, as well as to group and personal interests, can, and generally are, well served by the free exchange of ideas.

But there are limits. Not all types of conversations are equally useful. There are some that are frustrating and maybe even counter-productive. I'm thinking of some forms of political, religious and sports "debates" that seem to do little good. These are the kind where cultural & factional prejudice are in control and serve narrow goals and interests.

Such contrasts of good versus poor conversations run through my mind when I hear about Interfaith dialogs between religious minded and freethinkers. Every now and then an Interfaith group reaches out to someone like Christopher Stedman, Interfaith & Community Service Fellow for the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and the Founder of the first blog dedicated to exploring atheist-interfaith engagement, NonProphet Status. (see also his Faitherst book site).

Stedman is a natural candidate for such dialogs but some of the questions in my mind are what topics of conversations can they be, what would we in the WASH community have to say in such dialogs?

For some parts of the interfaith community productive or potentially productive conversations seem possible at least for some topics. Discussion of topics like ethics are possible with "faithful" people who are not worried about definitions of religion or they are progressive thinkers engaging in interfaith work and see such conversations as a natural extension of religious pluralism. The assumption is that all sides will just welcome a conversation in the hope that each may profit from frank exchanges within open and searching dialogs. It's an appealing idea to launch such conversation in an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance. These may be enhanced with the idea that we are all just human individuals forging our personal paths forward and than all sides can learn from others experience and thinking. This conversational spirit may appeal to some believers - ones who's value acceptance & dialog over the dogmatic creed & ritualistic parts of religion.

Creed and ritual are 2 of the 4 common characteristics of religions that Catherine Albanese discusses in her book America: Religions and Religion. Some of these may come up in Inter-faith-Freethinker discussion with varying expectations of acceptance.

Discussing creeds or explanations about the meaning or meanings of human life might raise some issues for both sides. On the religious side the discussion might focus on systematic theologies, but also oral traditions, narratives, and so forth. Secular Humanists have such explanations of human life although we might not call them creeds, We even have a bit of interesting history which standard religious groups may know little about and this might be something worth communicating. We would probably also want to talk about science as a method that promises to improve our understanding & explanations of the natural world.

A 2nd characteristic is Codes - rules that govern everyday behavior. Religious conversations can range from complex, formalized systems of laws to unwritten customs or to general ethical ideas. Secular Humanists may want to emphasize the rational aspects of ethics and demote customs frozen from ancient history. In the right environment a conversation seems possible here, although as with creed religious groups may feel they have much more to say and a freethinker may feel the basis of their codes are questionable and need to be challenged.

Number 3 is Cultuses - rituals that act out the understandings and insights of the creeds and codes. This is more problematic to me, since it builds on, and potentially amplifies, areas of disagreement from the earlier 2 topics. Of course they aren't necessarily discussed in sequence but are munged together and can be hard to untangle. Freethinkers are not partial to rituals, although we have,for example, developed cermonies for the big events of life - birth,marriage and death. Still religious rituals outnumber ours by a quite a bit. This point was well out by a Secular Humanist who said when discussing the topic of Secular Communion http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/can_we_at_least_demand_secular.php , "It's not like secular humanists have to swear allegiance to Homo sapiens sapiens and forgo all other concern for other life forms.

The last characteristic, and a frequent discussion topic between faiths is that of Community. These are groups of people who are bound together by the previous 3 characteristics - creed, code and cultus. People like to compare and contracts these which can take the form of ethnic or cultural groups or formal institutions such as churches, denominations, or a group like WASH.

We can probably agree that many aspects of 3C's are on informal and varied side with Freethinkers. We have our own Inter-Belief spectrum so communities may be as diverse as found within the entire Intefaith community. All of which suggests we might have more diverse representation within such discussions. How about a dialog that adds to the faith community atheists, skeptics, and secular humanists. Not something I see happening soon, but I'm open to discussing it.

Will Romney Apologize?

By Luis Granados

Everything is breaking right for Mitt Romney this year, as his opponents do their best to imitate Joe Louis’ old “Bum of the Month Club.” Unless the same strategy that’s failed to revive our economy over the past three years suddenly starts working, it looks like America is about to have its first Mormon president.

Which is perfectly ok. Mormonism is no more bizarre than Christianity, Islam, or Judaism – it’s just newer. I wouldn’t disqualify Romney based on his supernatural beliefs – even though his bigotry would disqualify me. “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom,” he proclaimed in 2007. “Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.” He went on to condemn humanists in bitter terms:

It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong. … We are a nation ‘under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust. We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history.

That’s still not a disqualifier; humanists get the same middle finger from Obama, who insists that religious faith is “fundamental to human progress.”

There is one big Romney religious scandal that really ought to be a disqualifier, though – unless he’s big enough to issue an apology.

Mitt Romney volunteered to serve as a Mormon missionary in France from 1969 to 1971. He excelled at the work, becoming a zone leader in Bordeaux, then assistant to the mission president in Paris, the highest position for any missionary. Hundreds of French were baptized into the Mormon faith during his tenure. He has never claimed to have preached and disseminated anything other than standard Mormon doctrine during this period.

During Romney’s missionary period, standard Mormon doctrine concerning race was exemplified by the Juvenile Instructor, a publication for Mormon children: “We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. . . We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white.”

Mormonism teaches that souls exist long before the humans with which they are associated are born into the world. The official Mormon doctrine was that souls who had sinned against God before physical birth were punished by being born with dark skin. Mormon President Joseph Fielding Smith described this in 1935:

Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.

Bruce McConkie, the leading modern-day Mormon theologian, wrote in 1958 that “The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord.”

When the Supreme Court began ending school segregation in 1954, the Mormon church was appalled. Apostle Mark Petersen stated that:

I think the Lord segregated the Negro, and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, ‘what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.’ Only here we have the reverse of the thing - what God hath separated, let not man bring together again.

Mormon-sponsored Boy Scout troops even discriminated against black Boy Scouts, because they had to hold church positions in order to become patrol leaders, and they could not do so.

Mormon doctrine was especially vehement on the evils of miscegenation. Brigham Young, the Mormon leader after Joseph Smith:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Won’t it be juicy to watch Romney run against the world’s most famous miscegenation product?

The relative darkness of the skin of American Indians, at least in comparison with that of the Mormons, was also related to their sins, according to the Book of Mormon that Romney tried to plaster all over France. “And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” [I Nephi 12:23].

There was hope for the coloring of Indians who converted to the true faith, though. Spencer W. Kimball noted in 1960 that:

I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today . . . they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people. . . . For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. . . . The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation. At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl – sixteen – sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. . . These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

Kimball was rewarded for his powers of observation by becoming the 12^th LDS president in 1973, five years after Romney returned from France. Not until five years later did another LDS president have a “revelation” to allow black males into its priesthood, without officially changing Mormon teaching on the “pre-birth” evil of black souls.

Mitt Romney was 19 years old when he left for France, six years after Kimball spoke, and nearly 22 when he returned. He was old enough to think, to vote, to fight, and to supervise 175 missionary subordinates. Instead of saying “I am not going to try to promote any organization with teachings that obscene or that preposterous,” he did everything in his considerable power to try to extend the reach of that organization as much as he possibly could. Not only has he never apologized for any of this, he is still bursting with pride over the entire missionary episode.

People make mistakes, especially young people who have been brainwashed by elders claiming to speak for God. Mistakes can be forgiven, but only for people who acknowledge that what they did was wrong and resolve not to do it again. So is Mitt Romney ever going to apologize, not for being Mormon, but for spreading vicious and disgusting teachings on race? Unlike Joseph Smith, I don’t claim to be able to predict the future. I do know, though, that the title of the campaign book Romney published earlier this year is No Apology.

Learning More about the 1848 Springtime of Nations in 2011

By Gary Berg-Cross

The Europe of 1848 was not a time and place that my high school history courses focused on. Only much later did I stumble on good histories of the populist, revolutionary period which erupted in Italy 1848 and spread to France and then more widely across the Europe of Prussia, Austria and the German Confederation only to be overturned and usher in 50 years of conservative rule. The most I knew was something of the America of the Gilded Age and oligarchic robber barons and plutocrats of the era.

Now one can read more readily about the speculative parallels between that revolutionary period and our world of 2011. For example, the years before 1848 were like the last few years. There were socio-economic stresses of rising commidity prices during generally depressed economic conditions that promoted widespread unemployment. Leading up to 1848 there was a general sense of repression, complaint about the system and a weakness in the established order. There was resentment against the governing classes, who seemed sheltered from the impacts of a system grinding to a halt.

More specifically there seem to be interesting parallels between the Arab Spring and The Revolutions of 1848. (Perhaps for common underlying reasons the Revolutions of 1848 are often called the "springtime of nations.”) A deeper parallel between the two is a common motivating drive - to change the existing political systems from central power regimes, as in Egypt, to more democratic and moderate systems. In 1848 Metternich’s 23-year-long repressive dictatorship in Austrian vanished. Later this spread to regimes in Italy, France, and the German states. Jonathan Steinberg, compares this starter scene to what we saw in Tunisian as President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali's fled from power like Meddernich. In each case a wave of revolutions spread across the region.

“In both cases, the crowds in the streets were glad to see the dictators go but unclear on the social and political orders that should replace them.” 1848 and 2011: Bismark and the Arab Spring. That unclarity about how to replace the old regimes is something we see being played out in the Middle East.

Another parallel noted by some is the diversity of the types of revolutions that spread from a small start:

Though inspired very generally by the ideas of liberal nationalism and democracy, the mostly middle-class demonstrators of 1848 had, like their Arab contemporaries, very different goals in different countries. In Hungary, they demanded independence from Habsburg Austria. In what is now Germany, they aimed to unify the German-speaking peoples into a single state. In France, they wanted to overthrow the monarchy (again). In some countries, revolution led to pitched battles between different ethnic groups. Others were brought to a halt by outside intervention

While some analysis focused on the Arab Spring we now have the Occupy movement and one might see some of the parallels here too. In the 1848 citizen revolutions, as with the Arab Spring, the mobilization of power was far from the big centers of power, but they have now spread to centers of powers, such as Wall Street, in the West. Relatively conservative “regimes’ and oligarchies are now being challenged by citizen power. The complaints are somewhat similar and the forcefully reactions of establishment forces are also disappointingly familiar -perhaps because the changes needed might come at some cost to entrenched interests, traditionally influential groups, lobbies or their religious allies. In the Paris of 1847 citizen "banquet meetings” were held occasionally organized by 'liberal' interests. They subsequently spread widely across France, until authorities banned them. A broad range of citizen protested the crackdowns as limitations on the right of assembly. Moderates and intellectuals warned of the possible clash and the language and core ideas resonant still today. This was how Alexis de Tocqueville spoke the situation on January 29, 1848 to the French Chamber of Deputies warning them of the danger of over reaction and the need for reform and the possibility of a non-destructive way of doing it if the forces in charge act quickly and decisively:

• “Keep the laws as they are, if you wish. I think you would be very wrong to do so; but keep them. Keep the men, too, if it gives you any pleasure. I raise no objection so far as I am concerned. But, in God's name, change the spirit of the government; for, I repeat, that spirit will lead you to the abyss.”
• “Do you not feel -- what shall I say? -- as it were a gale of revolution in the air?...”
• “We are sleeping on a volcano... A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon” http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville

De Tocqueville & the 1848 revolutionaries shared a model on which to base their fight with the establishment - the ideals of French Revolution such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, which the French National Assembly approved in 1789.

One humanist ideal expressed there is that:

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good."

This idea of equality remains powerful today as part of the Occupation movement along with populist human aspirations variously expressed as constitutional or liberal reform.

Back in 1848 warnings such as from de Tocqueville were not well heeded and the old regimes fell for a while. If the start of revolutionary activities in 1948 and 2011 look similar we might ask about how they progressed and ended up. People often ask about the motivations of a movement like Occupy Wall Street and what objectives it seeks. It may make sense to see the OWS movement as something that focuses a spotlight on issues and is useful to get conversations started about topics that may get fresh thinking on lingering problems and lead to change. Intellectual elites like George Lakoff are providing advice on how to get a message of change out. Matt Taibbi suggested a few possible demands for the Occupy Wall Street protestors to change the financial system such as breaking up monopolies, taxing "hedge fund gambling" and the like. OWS seems to me to be more diffuse than than the 1848 movements and better informed by history and events. While it shares similar grievances and seeks remedies outside of the existing power structure it has not spawned revolutionary groups seeking power. But a question that might be asked is what idea of progressing forward towards fairness and equality does the movement afford and what can be learned from the efforts that started in 1848?

Here one chilling lesson, and something for movement liberals to keep in mind, is the consequences of not following opportunities with wise, consolidated action . A simple lesson from the "springtime of nations" is that it is easier for movements to overthrow an existing power structure than build a new one. While liberal forces were able to seize a degree of power in 1848, they had no clear vision of how to govern. There were many visions, which resulted in clashes of ideas and the agendas of different revolutionary groups. The lack of agreement and consensus allowed relatively conservative forces to draw up plans, consolidate resources and to eventually retake power. Liberal “Republics” were never able to check the power of holdovers from the old regimes including control of military power. They were never productive enough to get buy in from the Bourgeoisie & what we might now call the 99%. Conservative interests, who were determined to restore the old order, did reach some consensus and get enough buy in to regain power. One thing they were willing to do was to modernize their management techniques to appeal to more strands of society as productive.

These anti-revolutionary forces also borrowed heavily from the revolutionary playbook. Aided by new technologies and railroads, they strengthened administration and modernized the bureaucracy. Pope Pius IX whipped up the fervor of the masses through the cult of the Blessed Virgin Mary, pilgrimages, and popular festivals to show where the public's loyalty truly rested. The 1840s had been years of poverty and unrest, but 1850¬-73 saw the first modern economic boom, and a long wave of prosperity followed. 1848 and 2011: Bismark and the Arab Spring

By 1852 conservatives could take advantage of the weaknesses of the new Republic forms of government and regained power, although is some cases there were now constitutions in effect that served to check conservative interests. By 1852 the revolutionary regimes were largely overturned and various forms of moderated conservative rule reestablished. My guess is that a core of the Occupy crowd has assimilated this message a bit and those who act on it have a chance of jumping towards the more progressive movement that succeeded to some degree at the end of the 19th century. We'll see. Something to keep in mind as we see events unfold in 2012.

Hurrah for Mississippi!

by Edd Doerr

On Tuesday, Nov 8, voters in poor, downtrodden Mississippi smacked down by a landslide margin a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would have outlawed abortion, even to save a woman's life and in cases of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, and several forms of contraception by declaring that human "personhood" begins when an egg is fertilized. This amendment was part of the strategy of the misogynist anti-choice movement to have a number of legislatures pass such amendments in order to steer a lawsuit to a Supreme Court that might then reverse Roe v Wade.

The Mississippi vote was thus a tremendous victory for common sense, women's rights, freedom of religion and freedom of conscience. Polls shortly before the referendum seemed to show that voter opinion was divided about 45 to 45, and anti-choicers were expecting a win.

As someone who has been a pro-choice activist for well over 50 years, I never cease to be amazed at the nonsense extruded by the religious right on the subject of abortion rights. They claim that the Bible supports the "personhood at conception" idea, yet that is not in the Bible. The New Testament does not condemn abortion and the OT uses the term "nefesh" for person, having to do with breathing, to refer to babies after they are born. The most eminent Christian theologian, Thomas Aquinas, believed that fetuses are "insouled" weeks after conception. As for science, the majority opinion was expressed by Isaac Asimov when he wrote that personhood requires a functioning brain. In the late 198os I cooked up an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in the Webster v Reproductive Health Services case that was signed by 12 Nobel laureate biologists (including Francis Crick) and 150 other distinguished biologists that expressed the view that the functions of personhood are not possible until the cerebral cortex is wired up and functioning, some time after 28-32 weeks of gestation. The brief, regarded by the NOW as the most powerful one filed in the case, is reprinted in the ARL book Compulsory Pregnancy: The War Against American Women, by John M. Swomley (available from ARL, Box 6656, Silver Spring, Md 20916, for $10).

I would also like to make the point that Christians believe that persons are "created in the image of God". Since this has nothing to do with flesh and blood and DNA, but, rather, with the capability for consciousness and will, the use of religion to deny women reproductive choice is transparent and phony, about what one might expect from the Old Boys Club on the Tiber and the ultraconservatives of the Christian right.

Shifting gears, let me recommend Jill Lepore's excellent 12-page article "Birthright" in the Nov 14, 2011, New Yorker. She sumarizes the history of the struggle over access to family planning and abortion rights in the US. I would add only two items to the Lepore piece: 1. A word of appreciation for the decades of activism by unsung hero Bill Baird on behalf of access to contraception and abortion rights (the Baird v Eisenstadt case paved the way for the expansive Roe v Wade ruling; and Baird, like Rodney Daingerfield, "don't get no respect"); and 2. A word about the 1975 Nixon/Ford administration National Security Study Memorandum 200 report "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests", which was started by Nixon, endorsed by Ford, and then mysteriously classified and buried for nearly 20 years (The NSSM 200 report is included in Stephen D. Mumford's 1996 book The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a US Population Policy [the 579-page hardback is available for $32 from the Center for Research on Population and Security, Box 13067, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709]).

Lepore's New Yorker piece notes that Nixon began the drive by the GOP to increase its strength by attracting Catholic and conservative Protestant voters by opposing family planning. Yet it was Nixon who actually promoted family planning.

Lepore makes this intesting comment: "In June of 1972, a Gallup poll reported that 68% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats agreed that 'the decision to have an abortion should be made solely by a woman and her physician.' 56% of Catholics thought so too." And now it is Democrats who are defenders of reproductive choice and Republicans, like the collection of midgets seeking the GOP nomination, who have joined the extreme right in opposing women's rights.

Scratching

by Edd Doerr

Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano tells the story of the missionary who wanted to convert Indians in a South American jungle. He figured that if he could convert the village headman he could convert the whole village. So he spent hour after hour telling the headman about God, Jesus, the trinity, the Old and New Testaments, original sin, heaven and hell, etc.

When he finally finished his spiel, the headman sat silently for a while and then said, "White man, you scratch very very well, but you do not scratch where I itch."

It would be a cheap shot, of course, for me to say that the current gang of GOP presidential aspirants are scratching where most Americans do not itch.

WaPo and Overpopulation

by Edd Doerr

On Nov 6 the Washington Post ran an opinion piece on "Myths about global population" by Nicholas Eberstadt, a flack at the American Enterprise Institute. Following is the comment I posted on the WaPo blog:

"Nicholas Everstadt's opinion piece on global population has got to be the dumbest thing ever to appear in the Post. Eberstadt has made a career as a fanatic denier of the overpopulation problem. His uninformed screed does not contain a word about resource depletion, deforestation, desertification, pollution, climate change, global warming, overdependence on fossil fuels. He comes across as a hopeless ignoramus regarding history and economics, and makes Know-Nothings look like geniuses.

"Though surely aware of the existence of the Republican Ford administration's 1975 (when world population was a mere four billion) National Security Study Memorandum 200 report, which spelled out in great detail the whole panoply of negative economic and political consequences of unchecked population growth. Ederhardt surely knows that as soon as President Ford endorsed the NSSM 200 report it was mysteriously 'classified' and buried until shortly before the 1994 UN population conference in Cairo. I was present at a Johns Hopkins University conference in Washington shortly after the UN conference and personally witnessed Eberstadt exhibit his indedensible nonsense about population.

"The Post owes it to its readers to present a real expert to counter the astonishing blather exuded in the Post's opinion pages."

"Edd Doerr, President, Americans for Religious Liberty, arlinc.org"

It would be helpful if others would also contact the Post Also, I just emailed the Post a short letter to the editor saying some of the above.

Encouraging Suicide

by Luis Granados

Buddhist God experts in southwestern China have been on a suicide binge lately. Last week victim #11, a 35-year old Buddhist nun named Qiu Xiang, set herself aflame. Most of the previous victims were younger, either twenty-somethings or, in several cases, mere teenagers. Most also come from a single town, Aba, which is near (but not in) Tibet.

The circumstantial evidence is that there is an organized campaign in this town to egg these young people on to die the most grotesque kind of death. Either that, or there is something awfully strange in the water at the local monastery. In fact, two monks have been criminally charged in the “suicide” of 16-year old Rigzin Phuntsog; a third is charged with concealing him for 11 hours after the bonfire, to make sure he died rather than receiving the medical treatment that might have allowed him to grow to adulthood.

What is the purpose in wasting these young lives? The purpose is to make a political point: that the Dalai Lama, the divine-right monarch of a particular Buddhist sect, ought to have more earthly power, and the Chinese government ought to have less. “Love live the Dalai Lama!” cried Tsewang Norbu, age 29, as he was engulfed in flame.

Why now? It seems to have something to do with the process for selecting the new spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhists after the current 76-year old Dalai Lama dies. He got his job in an interesting manner. The corpse of his predecessor, the 13^th Dalai Lama, was observed by bureaucrat-monks turning his head from the southeast to the northeast, facing in the direction of his house, when he was two years old. When he was shown some toys belonging to his predecessor, he said “Mine!”, thereby proving that he was a genuine reincarnation and not a fake. He not only got the toys, but instantly became one of the richest persons in the world – his Drepung monastery alone had 185 manors, 300 pastures, and 25,000 serfs.

So the government of China has announced that it plans to be involved in the selection of the successor, just as government authorities have been involved in the selection of all the previous Dalai Lamas. This has moved the current Dalai Lama to invent a new magic revelation, overturning centuries of hallowed doctrine, that he has the divine right to pick his own successor, I guess because unlike his predecessors he knows where he’s going to be reincarnated. He now says that even if the Chinese government helps select the holiest person on the planet, good Buddhists should pay him no mind.

Suppose a teenaged supporter of Newt Gingrich, or Michelle Bachmann, decided that his favorite candidate wasn’t doing as well as hoped, and needed more respect. So to get attention, the young fellow burns himself to a crisp. Other supporters look on, and say “What a neat idea! I’ll prove how committed I am to the cause by killing myself too! Besides, if I don’t, everyone will say I’m a wimp.” How do you think Gingrich or Bachmann would respond? Even the most rabid Democrat would have to admit that the response would be a straightforward “DON’T DO THAT! Are you crazy? Winning the White House is important, sure, but it’s not that important that it’s worth killing yourself over.”

Contrast this with the actual response of His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. Neither the words “Don’t do that!” or any other words of similar import are anywhere to be found. Instead, he leads public prayers in celebration of the suicides, extolling what terrific people these were. “They publicly played it up, spread rumors and incited more people to follow suit,” complains a government spokesman. That’s exactly what happens when the Dalai Lama puts all the blame on the Chinese government, and none on the Buddhist leadership: “The local leader must look what’s the real causes of death. It’s their own sort of wrong policy, ruthless policy, illogical policy,” he insists.

“Throughout your successive rebirths, never relax your vigilance in upholding the truth of the Buddha’s excellent teaching for a single moment, even at the cost of your own life,” urges Kirti Rinpoche, the former head of the monastery now producing all the suicides, who now lives in comfortable CIA-funded exile with the Dalai Lama. Subtle, huh?

The key point in Rinpoche’s exhortation is the “successive rebirths” part. The tragic sham of Buddhism is to place little value on human life, because once you end this life you’ll just hop right into another one – an especially nice one, if you gave up your life to advance the political career of a professional Buddhist God expert. That kind of thinking is how Buddhism, a “foreign” religion from India, got its foothold in China, back in the times when regional warlords ruled after the fall of the Han Dynasty. Confucianism, the prevailing philosophy, stressed that sons should respect their parents by staying home and working the land. It was above all things a philosophy of peace, entirely unconducive to the recruitment of armies of conquest. By contrast, Buddhists made terrific soldiers. The privations of war were easy to endure for those who craved nothing in this life and concentrated exclusively on bumping up a step in the next. Constant propaganda from Buddhist God experts in pay of the state that the best way to do that would be to die the most heroic of deaths in battle had the expected effect. Knowing where their bread was buttered, these monks allowed the civil authorities broad power not only over clerical appointments and temple procedures, but even over core doctrines such as the curriculum of Buddhist schools, the classification of certain doctrines as heresy, and the promotion, demotion, or attribute-assignment of individual Gods.

This pattern continues in modern times. In 1938, leading members of Japan’s Nichiren Buddhist sect (many of whom were upper-echelon military officers and civilian right-wing ideologues) founded a group devoted to “Imperial-Way Buddhism,” declaring:

Imperial-Way Buddhism utilizes the exquisite truth of the Lotus Sutra to reveal the majestic essence of the national polity. Exalting the true spirit of Mahayana Buddhism is a teaching which reverently supports the Emperor’s work. This is what the great founder of our sect, Saint Nichiren, meant when he referred to the divine unity of Sovereign and Buddha. . . . For this reason the principal image of adoration in Imperial-Way Buddhism is not [the] Buddha … who appeared in India, but his majesty the Emperor, whose lineage extends over ten thousand generations.

They were enthralled by the war then raging in China:

In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of ‘killing one in order that many may live.’ This is something which Mahayana Buddhism approves of only with the greatest of seriousness.

Great seriousness, indeed – many thousands of American servicemen died from suicidal kamikaze attacks by young Japanese who were just as convinced then as the Dalai Lama’s disciples are today that suicide will bring them happiness in the next life.

If it weren’t for all the CIA money supporting him over the decades, the Dalai Lama and his reincarnation antics would be a joke. Thinking about what these 11 idealistic young people might have done with their lives had they not been encouraged to throw them away doesn’t leave me smiling, though.