Some Christian and Buddhist reflections

Introduction

Today I’m going to begin by commenting on material I encountered on the Unity Church website at http://www.unity.org. I don’t have any particular interest in Unity Church, but I noticed that some of their material triggered a response deep within me. So I want to share some of that with you.

Then I'll make some comments under these headings:

• You don't have to find a congregation in order to worship.

•  What are your practices? 

Unity Church

From the Unity Church website:

“The five basic ideas that make up the Unity belief system are:”

[NOTE: My comments are indented and follow each numbered point taken from that website.]

1. God is the source and creator of all. There is no other enduring power. God is good and present everywhere.

But what is God? For instance, to say Michelangelo was the source and creator of great works of art gives us no idea of what kind of person he was, but instead only gives us an inferential means of knowing anything at all about this man. Quite often in the art world, we find artists to be eccentrics who are really marginal (if not outright detestable) human beings who had managed, through their art, to put their best foot forward.

God can't be "present everywhere," for if He were, He'd have to be "present" in evil. That wouldn't be possible if God were always good.

Then there's the issue of the Creation itself. Since God was perfect, He should have let well enough alone and not created anything. Since He was the only thing in the universe and in fact was the universe prior to the Creation, then the introduction of created things introduced imperfection and things that were not God into that universe. Can an entity responsible for introducing imperfection be considered perfect after that?

During one of the few times I presented publicly, I asked my audience what they considered to be the ultimate power of God?" One man responded quickly though predictably, "The ability to create other Gods entirely equal to Himself." I used to give that answer myself until I thought of something even more radical. Since the ability to create (or more precisely, the ability to create something from nothing) is considered a uniquely Godly power, I offered its opposite: "Then so must be the ability to Dis-Create - that is, to turn something into nothing." A more radical part follows: "Wouldn't it be amazing if God could Dis-Create Himself, so that the Universe would be godless? And even more amazing if, after Dis-Creating Himself, Re-Created Himself as He was before? And even still more amazing if He Created, Dis-Created, and Re-Created Himself on a routine basis?"

My only purpose in asking such questions is to whet the appetites of others so they stop and think about what God is. For God isn't what the local Muslim imam or country preacher says He is, even if these (usually) men try to quote scripture to back them up. God is what you say He is or at least He is in a functional and applied way - that is the truth of the matter.

2. We are spiritual beings, created in God’s image. The spirit of God lives within each person; therefore, all people are inherently good.

Instead, I would say, "We are beings who have spiritual potential but it's not necessary for God to exist for this to be so." We know we exist; we can't be as sure that God does. In second place to the knowledge of our own existence, we know other people exist. We can learn an awful lot by trying to connect to the existences of those entities whose existences are universally accepted. Trying to connect to other entities not knowable as we know ourselves and our fellow humans is fine, but shouldn't stand in the place of knowledge of ourselves and human others.

If, however, it is true that "the spirit of God lives within each person," then it doesn't become necessary to seek a direct and personal connection to an external entity of Whom direct knowledge is (to say the least) limited to only a precious few. If we can connect to "the spirit of God [that] lives within each person [or, more precisely, within each created being]," that should be sufficient.

3. We create our life experiences through our way of thinking.

Our way of thinking is important but far more important is how we act. Quite often, we are pulled in different directions by conflicting thoughts and desires even while in the midst of taking action that favors one of those conflicting thoughts. These conflicts can be difficult to overcome as we seek serenity, but after all is said and done, no matter what we think, we end up doing something (or other). And even if we are massively indecisive and do nothing at all, well...doing nothing is a form of taking action, though it be a non-action. And all actions (active or passive) have consequences some call karma.

4. There is power in affirmative prayer, which we believe increases our connection to God.

Maybe we should try harder to put God first, care only about Him, and let the chips fall where they will, firm in the faith that however those chips fall is the will of God. It's okay to want things or to want one's life to have certain accomplishments or outcomes. But it's also okay if none of our desires are fulfilled if that be the will of God.

5.Knowledge of these spiritual principles is not enough. We must live them.

True enough - action must be taken. However, after action is taken based on "knowledge of these spiritual principles," sometimes the unexpected results of our actions causes us to rethink either our knowledge of these principles, the principles themselves, or both.

The Nature of Humankind

[Again, my comments are indented and follow each of the numbered points taken from the Unity website.]

1) We are each individual, eternal expressions of God.

Does "eternal" mean that we've always existed (as in having had past lives) or only that after we're born into this one-and-only life, we exist eternally from that point on as a soul either ending up being damned or saved based on the consequences of our one life as lived on this planet at this time?

2) Our essential nature is divine and therefore inherently good.

Some hold the view that within each of us is the capacity for great good and great evil (the Dr. Jekyll vs. Mr. Hyde view) or for occasional good and evil depending on our circumstances, mood, etc. The purpose of Buddhist practice is to reach a place called the Stage of Non-Regression (or not backsliding). Each disciple knew he had been born into this world with a heavy load of defilement due to sinful actions in past lives. But each one practiced meditation, compassion, and almsgiving hoping to erase the pending onslaught of karmic retribution which was to be the result of his sins catching up to him. This view is called Lessening Karmic Retribution.

To say we have only one essential nature seems more hopeful than accurate; accuracy perhaps lying in this: We are a composite of natures, some more dominant in particular individuals than in others.

3) Our purpose is to express our divine potential as realized and demonstrated by Jesus and other master teachers.

I take "divine potential" to mean "Buddha nature" or the capacity to become completely and exclusively good. A lot of my fellow Buddhists don't fully appreciate exactly what a Buddha is, but I urge them to read the Lotus Sutra which gives a description of the supernatural powers of such an accomplished one. One such power: The ability to generate an infinite number of (for lack of a better word) clones of ourselves so we could be simultaneously present anywhere in the universe where people were eager to hear the teachings. The acquisition of this ability (its cause) is born of the desire of the disciple to save all living beings; that is, it is born of great compassion.

I got into an argument at one local Buddhist meeting (of the Soka Gakkai International - USA) when I spoke of working toward attaining Buddhahood. I was informed that we're already Buddhas (huh?) and that Enlightenment isn't a destination but an ongoing journey during which we manifest our Buddhahood in our daily lives. I simply reminded them that the Lotus Sutra (which they claim to follow) speaks constantly of when certain individuals were predicted to become the next Buddha by a currently living Buddha.

I like the reference above to "other master teachers." Even the Buddha taught that not everyone would benefit from his teaching but could benefit from others. He didn't insist that he was the one and only possible path to salvation/Buddhahood. He went even further on his deathbed by telling his disciples, "Don't follow persons, follow the Law."

4) The more we awaken to our divine nature, the more fully God expresses in and through our lives.

Another word for Buddha is "A Fully-Awakened One." What is called "God," I simply think of as a universal though impersonal Law. A lot of people get stuck (due to our ingrained patriarchal, male-dominated history) on needing to believe in God as a human-shaped father figure. Due to my belief in the ability of teachers to shapeshift, I believe there are enlightened entities who show themselves as human-shaped father figures (alleged to be gods) if that is what is required to move particular individuals closer to perfection of understanding and of being.

“Our Teachings” - All numbered points are from the Unity site, followed by my indented comments.

1) Heaven is not a place, but a state of consciousness; we create our own heaven and hell here and now.

We also create our own heaven and hell that we'll live in after our death and into our next lives - all based on actions taken in this life and prior lives.

2) We all have an innate capacity to know God through direct experience.

Perhaps we have this "innate capacity," but I'm hard put to imagine there could be more than (maybe) ten people on the entire planet who have ever spoken to God and had Him speak back - which is what I would take "direct experience" to mean. But even in the case of ordinary mortals who have had ample opportunities to interact with others (that is, to "directly experience" them), how many times have we heard them later exclaim, "I thought I knew this person - I had no idea he was capable of doing something so horrible."

3) The “Christ” is that part of God that is in every person. There is a spark of divinity within all people, just as there was in Jesus.

Then what is the difference  (if any) between Jesus and other people? Since we all have that spark of divinity within, then it must be possible for a common mortal to become the equal of Jesus. But that runs into the claim that Jesus was divine - some even saying that He is God or at least a co-equal part aka the Trinity.

4) Prayer works.

I would instead say, "Prayer can be effective but its results aren't always guaranteed or predictable." I knew a heavy smoker who developed oral cancer. He was a top Chicago-area Buddhist lay leader. So he decided to chant four hours per day to overcome his cancer. After all, there were known instances of others who had done exactly that. But in his case, he died anyway. Some might say this is proof that chanting doesn't always work. But I would add the word "yet." I am confident that his chanting served to erase a sizable portion of his bad karma, but it wasn't enough to erase the part that caused him to get cancer in the first place. Maybe his death from cancer was not overcomeable with the amount of practice he had already invested. Maybe cancer was a teacher he had to have in order to feel the pain necessary to become more compassionate toward the sick.

Of course, what I don't like about such a view is it lacks falsifiability. If "prayer works," then it must work all the time, though it must be asked "how much prayer and how sincerely must it be offered?" If no test can be proposed the failure of which would disprove "prayer (or chanting) works," then to continue to believe that "prayer works" becomes only a matter of belief which in the face of failure is explained away rather than ending up being seen as proving prayer doesn't work.

5)   We are here to set a positive example and be a role model for others.

We can do this without having any religion or spirituality at all.

6) We are here to make the world a better place.

Even an atheist could embrace that view, while knowing that nothing happens by itself and a better world is preferable - that is, he knows he has to work toward this goal. I guess the question becomes, "How much effort and of what kind do I want to personally expend?" If a person were told that committing 90% of his waking moments to working in a food pantry would improve the world by .00000001%, he'd have to ask himself, "Is it worth it?"

Jesus

"We see Jesus as a master teacher of universal truths and as our Way Shower" - Unity website.

Does Unity see Jesus as having eternally co-existed with God and as God having manifested Himself in human form - as in the Trinity? Does Unity say anything about Jesus being the sole path to eternal salvation?

I have heard the claim that Jesus died for our sins and that by accepting Jesus, one was guaranteed heaven (barring backsliding, of course). I've always had a problem with my salvation being dependent on what someone else did, having put it this way:

"Saying that someone died for my sins, is like saying, Let me make love to your wife instead of you doing so; it will be as if you made love to her."

I take responsibility for my own actions by realizing I died for my own sins. But I do realize that having good teachers can help me to advance spiritually. Maybe I could save myself by myself, but it would be hard to do. Besides, it must be remembered that we are never by ourselves, even if we can't see the individual spirit teachers that surround us and are dedicated to us.

The Bible:

"Unity founders Charles and Myrtle Fillmore studied the Bible... The Bible continues to be a valuable spiritual resource for us." - Unity website.

Would Unity be tolerant of those who read the Bible but interpreted in ways other than the Fillmores’? What about the 300 gospels mentioned below? Are they considered part of the Bible embraced by Unity?

QUOTE [source: http://www.easysurf.cc/christ.htm ]

Over three hundred other gospels were ordered to be destroyed [by the Council of Nicea, which was dominated by the supporters of St. Paul] - including all Gospels written in Hebrew. An edict was issued stating that anyone found in possession of an unauthorized gospel would be put to death.

:UNQUOTE.

I'd like to address this claim from the Unity Website: 

Affirmative prayer is the same method of prayer Jesus taught when he said, “So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours” (Mark 11:24).

I'd be more comfortable with this change: "...believe that you will receive it." The actual quote urges us to be self-deceiving. And worse, if someone should ask us if got that thing we'd prayed for yet. If we were to answer "I have already received it" but in fact had not, then we'd be guilty of lying. I've always been bothered by the lack of this commandment within the Abrahamic traditions and the Buddhist ones: "Thou shalt not lie."

You don't have to find a congregation

in order to worship.

I myself was part of a Buddhist congregation until I was kicked out for being a (for lack of a better word) heretic. I miss a lot of the people and the warmth of fellowship offered by most of them. But it didn't take me long to treasure my new status as a solitary practitioner. I realized that, if it's traditional friendship that I want, I would have to take action toward gaining that. However, that's complicated by the fact that I love everybody but don't attach to any one person or group of persons exclusively. It can rightly be claimed that the Buddha didn't have any friends, though his disciples would have died for him - just as he would have died for them. I suspect the same could be said of Jesus.

I enjoy the give-and-take of sharing personal experiences with others, but I am careful to keep in mind that that kind of relationship can serve to limit our vision as well as to expand it.

What are your practices?

I did some rethinking about something I learned decades ago, which was this: In ancient India, whenever two wandering monks would happen to cross paths, they had a universal greeting: "Who is your teacher and what are your practices?"

What I failed to appreciate until now is the meaning of "what are your practices?" I assumed the answer would be a simple statement of the practices taught by one's teacher. But instead, what is being asked is "What are your practices?" That is, these two monks were inviting each other (notably, out of earshot of both teachers and fellow congregants) to share notes on what each of them personally practiced.

In my case, I start my answer with, "My teacher is Shakyamuni Buddha whom I (unlike any other Buddhist on the planet) believe to still be alive today, is always close by even though I don't see him, and is trying to teach me by nudging me in certain directions so I learn by experience rather than words. After all, at a certain point, words fail and experience must become the teacher." This bothered my congregation because they accept Nichiren of Japan (born 1222 AD) as their teacher, but aren't bothered at all by the fact that Nichiren never claimed to be a Buddha but instead claimed to be a disciple of Shakyamuni Buddha.

As for my practices, I simply pointed out what Nichiren himself acknowledged - that the Lotus Sutra is the highest of the Buddha's teachings (as claimed by Shakyamuni himself), and is in fact the highest teaching of all Buddhas in the universe (though not all Buddhist schools accept that claim). And in that Sutra, we are urged toward the highest practice, which is "to read, recite, and ponder the Lotus Sutra."

The hardest part for my fellows to accept was my rejection of the primary importance of chanting "Nam myoho renge kyo." Since that practice isn't even mentioned in the Lotus Sutra, how can that chant be considered so important? The irony, of course, is that I probably wouldn't have even encountered the Lotus Sutra or been attracted to it unless I had chanted Nam Myoho Renge Kyo. So, even though the group I joined was (as it turned out) fatally flawed, I owe them a debt of gratitude for having influenced my thinking. Whenever a bad person or group can influence in an unintended but good way, that is called having a "poisoned drum" relationship with that person.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, former candidate for US President (2008 & 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Maybe Kurt Vonnegut's son summed it up best (and here I paraphrase): ‘We are here to help each other get through “this thing,” whatever “this thing” turns out to be.’”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Establishing Justice in America

Today’s Agenda

By means of analyzing the following recent news articles, I show that we have a long way to go in order to establish justice in America:

• "Did judge insert his religious views into case? Supreme Court refuses appeal.” - Footnote 1

• “Amish sect leader sentenced to 15 years in hair-cutting attacks” - Footnote 2

In addition, I offer comments on these two topics:

• The Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination.

• Why I insist it should be called “America.”

The importance of establishing justice

I personally believe that virtue (read “justice”) is its own reward. But a lot of people, in the name of being practical, won’t be satisfied with such a belief. So to my fellow Americans, I say:

In the long run, it will not be enough for this country to have technical allies - that is, supporters among the various state bureaucracies of the world. We need to win friends and admirers among ordinary people. And that can’t happen with our current judicial system. Only when we can show a genuine love of and support for a justice system that consistently delivers will the common man be impressed. It’s no longer good enough to say, “Well, at least we don’t throw people in jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread.” Actually, we come pretty close - too often - to doing just that.

“Did judge insert his religious views…”

QUOTE (footnote 1):

The US Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear an appeal by three young North Carolina men who claim a judge inserted his personal religious views into their case by sentencing them to de fact life prison terms for a robbery that netted less than $3,000.

[and]

Judge Baker sentenced each defendant to 53 to 71 years in prison without the possibility of parole.

:UNQUOTE.

The reason for such a stiff sentence? Even though the State of North Carolina denies this, the irrefutable answer is: The judge was offended that the robbery took place in a church while services were being conducted. Even though a gun was brandished - and accidentally went off - no one was harmed. The three robbers were caught almost immediately after they drove off in their getaway car, and admitted what they had done - pleading guilty in court and expressing remorse for their foolish act.

The judge, however, saw fit to sentence these young men according to standards that are (unbelievably) lawful in his state:

• Josiah Deyton - 18 years old, with no prior criminal record;
•  Andrew Deyton - 19 years old, with two misdemeanor drug convictions;
• Jonathan Koniak - 20 years old with no prior convictions.

According to my Footnote 1 source, this is what North Carolina’s assistant attorney general, Clarence Joe DelForge, tried to argue - an argument supported by lower courts which ruled on the case:

QUOTE:

“Judge Baker’s statements regarding ‘God’s money,’ and ‘God’s people,’ referred to what the victims reported,” he wrote.

:UNQUOTE.

However, Judge Baker’s own words, uttered in court before sentencing, contradict Mr. DelForges’s claim (please note my yellow highlights):

QUOTE [source: see Footnote 3]:

Before sentencing the boys to de facto life sentences, the judge commented that he had read letters from some church victims:

I think it was very appropriate what one person wrote that coming in God’s house using God as a curse and to make people give up their possessions and taking God’s money [from the collection plate] and threatening God’s people, I can’t imagine how evil these men are to have done this. That is the feeling of one person and I hope you realize that’s an opinion that is or a feeling that is justified. I mean you didn’t just steal money from people.  You took God’s money. …

:UNQUOTE.

The words highlighted in yellow above make it clear that the judge wasn’t just referring to (as Mr. DelForge put it) “what the victims reported.” However, for some mysterious reason or another, the lower courts didn’t see it that way. They couldn’t see that Judge Baker was giving his own (via “I think” and “I mean…”) personal, religiously-based justification for these stiff sentences as additionally reflected in another comment he made to the three defendants:

“There is Scripture that says, ‘Vengeance is mine saith the Lord,’ but every now and then I think the judicial system has to contribute what it can.”

This judge apparently believes courts should be in the business of helping to deliver Lordly vengeance, even though He clearly said “Vengeance is mine.” I thought the judicial mission was to interpret the law and sentence in an unbiased fashion. But, no, this judge felt it necessary to (in effect) take the lives of three young men - again, without the possibility of parole - for robbing a church.

I wonder if any of this church’s members, upon hearing of these drastic sentences, wrote letters of protest citing another biblical injunction - “Thou shalt not kill.” For that’s in effect what these sentences will do, especially the part denying the possibility of parole. And if some might quibble about these defendants not being literally killed, I have to ask: “What about Christian forgiveness? What about turning the other cheek?” Or is my suspicion correct about the motives of this church which is trying to establish God’s Kingdom on earth: Like the Taliban, they seek to impose their own vision of what they believe to be God’s will on everyone else.

Judge James Baker, the lower federal courts, and the US Supreme Court don’t seem to have any problem with this.

But I do. And so should every USA citizen, no matter what state they call home. All Americans should be bothered by the fact that North Carolina’s sentencing standards would permit such drastic sentences in the first place, disregarding for a moment the fact that this judge complicated matters with his God talk. For no matter where we live in the United States, we’re all covered under the US Constitution’s Ninth Amendment, which states:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And one of these non-enumerated rights must surely be that punishment must fit the crime, to which I add “no matter where within the United States one might happen to live.” For the existence of gross injustice anywhere within our borders reflects badly on all of us, giving people elsewhere who don’t like us very much anyway to come to actually detest us. And that would make the existence of locally-based abuses based on states’ rights a matter of national security.

Side note: I contacted the defendants’ Counsel of Record, Hoang V. Lam, who petitioned the US Supreme Court on behalf of these defendants. I asked him if any of these young men were black, to which he replied that they weren’t. I’m glad he replied to me, since I couldn’t find any answer to my question after making an extensive internet search. If they had been black, then cynics might claim that was the real reason for Judge Baker’s extreme sentences.

“Amish sect leader sentenced to 15 years…”

I can draw only one conclusion from this odd case - that the federal government through its attorneys proceeded as it did against this sect in order to send a message: “We will come down hard on any charismatic non-mainstream group, no matter how small, since we can’t tolerate the possibility of any leaders arising who have even a remote chance of challenging our power.” The fact that the feds sought a life sentence for this leader speaks volumes of this unspoken motive.

When I first read about this case, as linked in Footnote 2, I thought: “A judge sentenced a 67-year-old man to 15 years in prison for urging his followers to forcibly give haircuts and beard-shearings to unwilling people who were Amish in opposition to him?” Then I read about how his followers broke into peoples’ homes to administer these tonsorials. Breaking into peoples’ homes is pretty serious business, so I wondered why this leader - Samuel Mullet Sr. (yes, his name really is Mullet) - and his clipper-wielding followers weren’t brought up that charge.

This quote is from Footnote 2’s link (note what I highlighted in yellow):

QUOTE:

The breakaway Amish were convicted last year of multiple counts of conspiracy and hate crimes, which carry harsher punishment than simple assault.

[and]

But in passing sentence Judge Dan Aaron Polster told Mr. Mullet and his co-defendants that they were being punished for depriving victims of a constitutional right, religious freedom, whose fruits they enjoyed themselves as Amish through exemptions from jury service and other laws.

“Each of you has received the benefits of that First Amendment,” Judge Polster said.

The series of attacks in 2011 spread fear through Amish communities in eastern Ohio. Followers of Mr. Mullet broke into homes, restrained men and women, and forcibly sheared their victims, sometimes with tools used to clip horse manes.

:UNQUOTE.

Depriving victims of their religious freedom? How so? The only thing being deprived was their hair. They were still able to worship as they desired, unless one buys into the idea that worship without good hair isn’t possible. Yes, it’s true what this same article says, “For Amish…long beards and flowing women’s hair represent religious devotion and cultural identity.” But that’s got nothing to do denying anyone his religious freedom. But Judge Polster actually went along with such a bogus argument without a gun to his head.

I found the following statement in this article to be especially disturbing: “Many of the defendants also asked the judge to give them all or part of Mr. Mullet’s sentence…” That shows a level of devotion to a leader which will only serve to assure further harassment of this sect, since they obviously don’t worship the same “gods” as does our government. The FBI will be watching them very closely. And watching any other groups out there which have a non-conformist agenda.

The Fifth Amendment

Here’s the entire Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (note the part I highlight in yellow):

QUOTE:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

:UNQUOTE.

However, that part I highlighted can be circumvented. Whenever the feds, in their infinite wisdom, decide that someone must be forced to testify, they offer him immunity from any prosecution that might be caused by his testimony. They figure that if someone can’t be prosecuted because of their testimony, the Fifth Amendment no longer applies. However, such a stand conveniently overlooks how a person might be punished or suffer loss outside of the courtroom, say, at the hands of friends, family, and the public at large.

The highlighted part says: “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.”

It doesn’t say, “…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself unless he’s given immunity from prosecution for his testimony.”

I am amazed that none of the so-called Constitutional strict constructionists in (for instance) the Tea Party have nothing to say about this blatant abuse of the Fifth.

Calling it America

The historical and current name of this country - the United States of America - describes an entity that no longer exists. The original and basic idea was that this was not to be considered one nation but, instead, a collection of independent nations (kind of like the UN) operating as if it was one single monolithic entity - at least as far as foreigners were concerned. However, since the concept of states’ rights now exists only on paper - having been destroyed by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Reconstruction Acts as well as having suffered death by a thousand cuts at the hands of an increasingly powerful central government - the USA is now, in effect, a single nation.

For this reason, I urge an official change of name to (simply) “America.” We call ourselves Americans and refer to the USA as “America” anyway, so why not formalize with an official name change? [NOTE: You’ll be amazed at the hostility I encounter when I try to promote this idea.]

We pay lip service to (at least) the vestigial remains of state and local sovereignty. But when push comes to shove, the feds get what they want at the expense of the locals. I’m not saying that’s a good idea, but it is a fact. Although here’s another fact: The power-sharing and checks-and-balances functions served by the states can be better served by means of a system I invented called Cross-Sectional Representation. This link serves as a good introduction:

http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

In conclusion

There is no doubt that the USA has a very materialistic culture. However, man does not live by bread (or luxuries) alone. For, ironically, the more we have on the outside, the emptier we come to feel on the inside. If we don’t pursue the course of establishing a just society, simply because it’s the right thing to do, then we make a mockery of our highest ideals. We can lie to ourselves all we want, but sooner or later all lies catch up and demand their “just” due. We’re at a point now where even children can see the lies and the “compromises” indulged in by their parents. Is that the kind of legacy we want to leave in our wake?

The saddest part? Precious few appreciate how a just society will yield economic benefits. For after the playing field is leveled and justice is truly available to all, the Elite won’t be able to warp the systems of justice and economy for their own gain. And that will open up possibilities for the rest of us.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle, Former Candidate for US President (2008 and 2012)

Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party

“Establishing justice doesn’t mean we give away the store; it means we enlarge it and ourselves at the same time.”

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com

Footnotes

Footnote 1:  Headline of an article by Warren Richey appearing in the Christian Science Monitor on 1/22/13.

Footnote 2: Headline of an article by Trip Gabriel appearing in The New York Times on 2/9/13: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/09/us/amish-sect-leader-gets-15-years-in-beard-cutting-attacks.html

Footnote 3: http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Deyton-v-Keller-Pet.pdf

Scottish independence

The following quote is from an article by Andrew Osborn titled, "Britain to Scotland: lose global clout if you exit UK" - posted on Yahoo News on 2/10/12:



QUOTE:

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government on Monday intensified its campaign to stop Scotland leaving the United Kingdom, publishing a legal opinion suggesting it would forfeit its membership of  international bodies such as the European Union if it chose independence.

The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) that runs Scotland's devolved government plans to hold a referendum on the politically sensitive and emotionally charged subject next year, and has played down the impact of a "Yes" vote on Scotland's international status.

But the 57-page legal opinion - drafted for the British government by two leading independent experts on international law - said the implications could be far-reaching.

The overwhelming weight of international precedent suggested Scotland would be legally deemed a "new state", it said - a scenario that would force it to re-apply to join international bodies such as the EU, the United Nations and NATO.

"If Scotland became independent, only the 'remainder of the UK' would automatically continue to exercise the same rights, obligations and powers under international law as the UK currently does, and would not have to re-negotiate existing treaties or re-apply for membership of international organizations," the government said.

:UNQUOTE.

It would be in Scotland's best interests to be considered a new state. Once it applies for membership in the UN (that is, if it would so choose) and is accepted (I couldn't imagine Scotland being refused), then there could be no doubt that Scotland had severed all sovereign ties with the UK. That would make it hard for the UK to later claim that Scotland's secession was illegal, although I'm sure the UK wouldn't have any problem finding two more leading "independent" experts to write another 57-page legal opinion to that effect. Or maybe the UK could hire the same two experts who had written the legal opinion referred to in the quote above.

However, I don't understand why "the remainder of the UK" should "automatically continue...as the UK currently does..." The "remainder of the UK" could arguably be considered a new state since it would no longer be what it was before the Scots broke free. Why should the "remainder" be given a free pass? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all of the UK seceded leaving only the southern half of England calling itself the UK. Then would it have to reapply to various international organizations? Could such a reduced entity, a shell of its former self, be allowed to remain one of the five veto-wielding members of the UN Security Council?

How about the possibility of the UK annexing more territory (perhaps by force), calling that part of the UK? Allowing such a new entity to remain in the UN, without having to reapply, would suggest that the UN condones the seizure of new territory.

Where does one draw the line?

In my opinion, if it would come to pass that any member state of the UN changes its dimensions - either by increasing or decreasing its territory - or is brought into existence by having seceded from any current member state, the UN should insist upon application for membership (or reapplication) as being necessary.

Side note: I'm sure that many in Third World countries, themselves the victims of centuries of oppression by British redcoats, will be amazed at how (apparently) easy it's turning out to be for part of the UK to gain its independence so non-violently. They wish they could have had it so easy.


Secessionist movements

It seems that more and more people around the world are increasingly thinking of themselves in increasingly narrow terms: "I am a Catalonian (so goodbye Spain)," "I am Chechnyan (so good riddance Soviet Union)," "I am Czech (so  goodbye Czechoslovakia),"  "I am Uigar (so goodbye China)."

I remember when a lot of people thought worldwide socialism was inevitable with the Soviet Union leading the way. We were urged to shed our identities as merely members of a tribe and to seek to become world citizens. There was much theoretical discussion about what Communist Man was supposed to look like. However, a lot of potential converts to this ideal were able to see that certain groups within the Soviet empire were given preferential treatment. That is, in Orwell's famous words, "Some people are more equal than others."

[Sigh]  So Communist Man bit the dust.

Tribalism has a lot of advocates these days, much to the consternation of established governments the world over. And secessionists have a number of rallying cries at their disposal. Like this one:

"Blood is thicker than water." That overlooks the fact that none of us has water coursing through his veins. No, I take that back, or at least this much: There's no overlooking going on here; instead, there is an attempt to dismiss the other as something other than human, for only such could possibly have water instead of blood in their bodies.

How about this one: a saying, in more or less these words, attributed to (pick one) Arabs, Bedouins, and Muslims:

"Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; and me, my brother and my cousin against the stranger." What about me fighting for what is right whether it hurts or runs counter to the interests of myself when my brother and I are in conflict, of me and my brother when my cousin is involved, or the three of us when the stranger enters our lives?

What about the spirit of Doctors Without Borders? That is, the spirit to do good irrespective of (always artificial) national boundaries? But, no, that was not to be on any but a very small scale. Instead, people the world over, especially those in minority groups, are becoming increasingly aware that they're being exploited. Even the USA's foreign aid program, once perceived as a paragon of generosity, is now recognized as primarily serving the USA's not-so-enlightened self-interest. So minorities within economically weak though resource rich states are seeing how their nations' leaderships are selling out to strong foreigners at their expense. So of course they will seek to resist.

But the mindset of the electorates in the advanced nations goes something like this: "Hey, times are tough and resources are getting scarcer. So of course it's only to be expected that our governments, in order to maintain our lifestyles, will seek to exploit weaker nations. And that's okay with me." It's even (at least tentatively) okay with the minorities within the exploiting nations as long as they get a piece of the pie - even if that piece is somewhat smaller than that enjoyed by the majority.



Back to Cross-Sectional Representation

During my run for the US presidency in 2008 and 2012, I advocated for replacing the US Constitution with one based on a concept I'd introduced back in 1976. That concept, which I have since refined, is called Cross-Sectional Representation or CSR for short. This link serves as a good introduction:


http://ind4prez2012.blogspot.com/2011/05/alternatives-to-fourth-reich.html

I am hoping that CSR could be introduced as the basis for a new constitution for the European Union. And more. Eventually for the whole world. But that would mean the various nations of earth would have to give up their sovereignty. But that's the idea, since it's my belief that national sovereignty is the greatest single threat to world peace - and the sooner we overcome that most inbred and ancient of major doctrines, the better.

Of course, the oligarchs in each advanced nation will do their best to maintain national sovereignty, since that's the key to their maintenance of control within their own borders. They will stoke the fires of "patriotism" by telling their populations how great they are and/or raising the fear that their way of life can't be maintained unless their military can prevent other nations from redistributing their wealth. These are powerful considerations, but should they win the day, they will give rise to a desperation among the have-nots that will pose an even greater threat to the peace and prosperity enjoyed by the haves.

But peace and prosperity don't have to be purchased at someone else's expense, unless one really believes that being able to buy a new model car every year is worth killing multitudes to obtain. Or believes in endless wars so that cheap gas can fill those tanks. My arguments against this kind of thinking are two-fold: Religious and economic.

• RELIGIOUS:  It is high time to attack institutional religions (that is, virtual state establishments) for what they are - supporters of the status quo favored by local elites. The power centers of the Abrahamic faiths are especially vulnerable to doctrinal attack as I've pointed out elsewhere on my blog. If people can be shown that their religious institutions have compromised the spirit of their faith, they will come to see they are poorly served by these. Of course, if they can be shown that their faiths are based on a lot of wobbly assumptions, they'll look for something else. And I think that "something else" lies in the realm of Buddhism, which is why I've written extensively on that subject on this blog - to provide food for thought and eventual action.                      
• ECONOMIC:  Once national borders are, in effect, dissolved and CRS is established, local elites will no longer be able to control government. And that will lead to a more broadly-based prosperity that will at least partially offset any reduction in the standard of living at the middle part of the spectrum. What will also help will be a vast reduction in global military forces which will come to pass once CSR serves to make borders irrelevant. There can be no question that the elevated lifestyles of the 1% or even the top 10% will be reduced by CSR. But since that reduction will help finance debt forgiveness or even reparations payments to formerly enslaved or exploited nations, anyone with a moral compass would surely approve. But that morality can only arise once the popular support for status quo state religions is challenged.

A Extreme Example with Merit

I want to tell a brief story of a non-selfish altruism which I believe is not only attainable (through the vehicle of Buddhist practice) but will turn out to be absolutely necessary in order to confront the ultimately destructive force known as national sovereignty.

Once upon a time there was a man possessing a certain limited degree of supernatural powers. He was at the beach watching his son swimming with an inner tube on very calm waters about 100 yards from shore. He also saw the son of his best friend who was the same age as his own son - 15 years - also about 100 yards from shore with his own inner tube. And both boys were about 100 yards from each other. Suddenly, a fierce storm arose from out of nowhere threatening to drown both boys should they prove unable, which they surely must, to hang onto their inner tubes. This man knew that he could use his supernatural powers to save only one boy. But which should he save?

He chose to save neither but did so in a way to send a message to both boys and to his best friend who was also on the beach. Since he was crippled, there was no way he could help. So the supernaturally empowered man decided to use his ability in a way that would end the lives of the two boys and his own life as well. Without saying a word, he started to walk on the water after he had calmed a pathway through the towering waves for him to walk on. He walked so he was 100 yards from shore and 50 yards from each boy. They were watching him as he just stood there looking at first one boy then the other. They watched him as his strength drained and he slipped below the waves and drowned. Then the boys also drowned.

The dead man's unspoken message: "I refuse to discriminate since I love you both equally. But I also refuse to do nothing. I willingly spent all the strength I had to show you that you would not die alone, that I was willing to be with you until the end - even if that meant my end as well. And you will remember that in your next lives as all three of us shall surely be reborn together again, united and strengthened by this experience."

Of course, it helped immensely for this man to know he would be reincarnated. But the irony is, with only a modest amount of reflection, such a thing can be known by just about anybody.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steven Searle
Former candidate for US President (in 2008 and 2012)
Founder of the Independent Contractors' Party

"After each of us takes the time and trouble to see what's really important to us as individuals, politics becomes quite easy."

Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com