[Buddha-l] NYTimes.com: Let Us Pray for Wealth

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 07 November 2007 16:39, curt wrote:

> Richard Hayes wrote:

> > I see nothing to be gained in characterizing Christianity or any of the
> > other Abrahamic traditions as being systematically and generally
> > intolerant or prone to cruelty.
>
> What it if it happens to be true?

As my wise and compassionate wife gently reminds me from time to time, not 
every truth needs to be spoken." The Buddha made similar observations. Before 
saying anything at all, it is not a bad idea to reflect on whether anyone 
will benefit by what one is about to say. It is in that spirit that I ask 
what might be gained by making broad statements about a large group of 
people. First of all, such broad statements are usually too gross to be true. 
But even if there is some sense in which it is true that a particular group 
is prone to intolerance and cruelty, who benefits from publishing that 
particular truth?

Well, let's ask who might benefit by broadcasting the news that Abrahamic 
religions are more likely to condone campaigns to eradicate (or extirpate, to 
use your word) other religions than other religions. Is that going to benefit 
Jews, Muslims and Christians? How? Are you expecting them to have fits of 
insight into their inner natures, to see themselves and prone to violence, to 
become ashamed of that propensity and to abandon either their destructive 
tendencies or their entire religions? Do you imagine that by 
saying "Abrahamic religions are prone to intolerance and cruelty," on 
buddha-l, that a person who was about to go out on a suicide mission will 
say "Golly, this is an intolerant and cruel action I was about to perform" 
and will thereby take off his suicide vest and go to a zendo or a Quaker 
meeting instead? (Oh shit, I forgot fr a moment that Quakers also follow an 
Abrahamic religion and are therefore prone to intolerance and cruelty, so 
forget the Quaker meeting.)

Perhaps you'll argue that broadcasting the news that Abrahamic religions have 
a terrible track record will benefit individuals who were considering 
converting to Judaism, Islam or Christianity. On noting that the conversion 
is likely to expose them to intolerance and cruel individuals whose 
mentalities might rub off on them, such people might rethink their plans to 
convert, thereby saving themselves. Is that what you hope to gain?

Perhaps you'll argue that broadcasting the news that Abrahamic religions have 
a bad track record will benefit societies that heed your observations and 
pass laws banning those religions and requiring the reeducation of everyone 
who follows them. (Didn't they try that in Spain in 1492? Did it work?)

Perhaps you'll argue that declaring the negative features of Abrahamic 
religions will benefit Buddhists in some way. Such people will look at 
themselves, notice that they are not following an Abrahamic religious 
tradition and feel good about themselves, even perhaps a little smug and 
self-congratulatory. Is this the good you see coming from broadcasting the 
truth as you see it?

> You *do* see something to be gained from casting *all religions*
> as intolerant and cruel

Not quite. I see something to be gained by reminding people that adhering to a 
religion does not have the effect of making them no longer prone to such 
human frailties as greed, hatred, delusion, spite, envy, jealousy, cruelty 
and intolerance. I see something to be gained by reminding people that they 
are human beings and are therefore not immune from unwholesome thoughts and 
actions. I see something to be gained by reminding people that when they 
begin to identify themselves as belonging to ANY group at all---whether it be 
a religion, a social club, a political party or a nation---they are 
increasing the likelihood of seeing themselves are more worthy of favorable 
attention and of seeing others as more worthy of being pushed to the margins 
or even killed.

> The 
> problem with that position is that it happens to be false - whereas when
> the phrase "all religions" is replaced by two religions in particular
> (and only those two) the statement becomes true.

Although I really hate speculation, I'm going to make a really wild guess 
here. I am going to guess that you see yourself as belonging to one or more 
religions that are not among the two that are, according to you, uniquely 
prone to intolerance and cruelty.

> Abraham, Shmabraham - leave him out of this. I am talking about
> Christianity and Islam

Oh, I see. So Judaism is---like Buddhism, Hinduism, Daoism, Shinto, Voodoo, 
Wicca, Scientology, Marxism and the Native American Church of Peyote---a 
religion with no history of violence, cruelty, exclusion of others, claims of 
chosenness and zealous militance against perceived enemies? So broadcasting 
this truth will benefit whom exactly? Do you suppose that seeing the true 
gentle and pacific nature of the Jewish faith is going to benefit the 
Canaanites, the Hittites. and the Philistines, not to mention the Babylonians 
who are featured in Psalm 137, which ends with the following inspiring words?

\begin{inspiring quote}
Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
 He will be happy who rewards you,
 As you have served us.
 Happy shall he be,
 Who takes and dashes your little ones against the rock.
                            [Psalm 137.8-9]
\end{inspiring quote}

> I have nothing at all against "theistic" religions

At last we seem to have reached some agreement. I also have nothing against 
theistic religions, except that they, like most systems invented by human 
beings, tend to promote delusions and nurture counterproductive modes of 
thinking.

I'm inclined to agree with Xunzi's observations that quite a lot that happens 
is beyond human control, and quite a lot that happens is within some degree 
of human control, and where we lapse into potentially dangerous delusion is 
when we begin to see our own thoughts and actions as the work of Heaven 
and/or spirits and when we begin to imagine that we can perform prayers or 
rituals to gain some degree of control over things that are in fact quite 
beyond our control.

But let's get to the point, which is really the whole purpose of buddha-l, 
namely, to discuss Republicans. What effect do you think Pat Robertson's 
endorsement of Rudolph W. Giuliani is going to have? 

-- 
Richard P. Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico
http://www.unm.edu/~rhayes