There’s
no school that says, 'Cling.' Liberation is about cutting, or
dissolving, or letting go of, or seeing through the attachment to
anything. The description of the mind of no-clinging may be different in
the different schools, but the experience of the mind of no-clinging is
the same. How could it be different?
|
You didn't get the memo John.
Liberals and the non-religious don't get religious freedom. Such freedoms are only for conservative Christians and occasionally certain kinds of conservatives practitioners of Judaism.
Christian conservatives, for example, object to gays getting married, so gays can't get married. That's their religious freedom.
Christian conservatives demand they don't have to follow the rules others have to follow and to be allowed to deny their employees birth control, question them about their private sexual practices as employees, and fire them. They're conservative, so that's their religious freedom.
Many liberals both desire and demand that states and the Federal government recognize same sex marriage and sign same sex marriage licenses out of their religious convictions concerning equality.
They're liberals, though - so they have no religious freedom and no say in the matter.
The problem with Romney is that Mormonism, no matter how out of the mainstream, is conservative.
That means he gets every freedom about his religion, including how to impose it on other people, and as a non-conservative, or non-religious person, you just, uh, DON'T.
It's not that mormons get to do things against other people and they get to hide if you have a problem with what they do, the problem is that you aren't a right wing religious conservative so you just get to shut up about it. Another right wing religionist would have, and has had, every power to question Romney's religion.
That is the true double standard here. Not about Romney's religion versus Obama's ethnic heritage. It's about only right wing religionists in this country having any kind of religious privileges whatsoever.
Until we recognize and have a national outcry against only conservatives having religious freedom while no one else does and actually having liberals loudly demanding their own religious freedom, nothing about this will change. Because it's only with lopsided religious freedom - with some having it all, others having none of it - that these lopsided power structures exist.
Right wing religionists have special rights, including rights in the media to tell you what you must do to observe their religion, even if you aren't part of it at all.
The true question that needs to be asked is why do only conservative religionists get any religious freedom or political or media consideration in this country?
People think 'no-self' means there's no one home. That's wrong. Free of fixed self, a living being thrives.
|
Compassion
doesn’t always mean being nice to people. Sometimes the best thing you
can do in a situation is to be rough with someone. We have to be
balanced in accord with each situation.
|
In
lovingkindness, our minds are open and expansive—spacious enough to
contain all the pleasures and pains of a life fully lived. Pain, in this
context, doesn’t feel like betrayal or an overwhelming force. It is
part of the reality of human experience, and an opportunity for us to
practice maintaining our authentic presence.
|
People
who are attached to sutras and a scriptural teaching of words can lack
faith in the living, mysterious experience of meditation that leads to a
sudden insight.
|
Buddhism asks us to go beyond the self, not to perfect the self.
|
Every
moment of experience is contingent on a vast complex of myriad
conditions. Nothing exists in and of itself as 'this' or 'that,' 'self'
or 'other.' Everything is what it is only in relation to what it is not.
|
When
we make the effort to understand what may seem strange in the religious
practices of others, we may find that it opens the door to something
beyond the particular case, something quite general: the capacity of
humans to participate in divinity.
|
The
more we can get the self out of the way, the more clearly we can see
the effect of our thoughts, words, and action upon ourselves and others.
|
Today’s order is yet another federal court victory for loving, committed gay and lesbian couples in California and around the nation,” said AFER co-founder Chad Griffin. “The final chapter of the Proposition 8 case has now begun. Should the United States Supreme Court decide to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in our case, I am confident that the Justices will stand on the side of fairness and equality.” On February 7, 2012, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit concluded that Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Ninth Circuit panel majority held: "Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. The Constitution simply does not allow for laws of this sort.”Human Rights Campaign
Once again, a federal court has affirmed that the cherished guarantees of our Constitution are there to protect all Americans – including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. For over three years, the plaintiffs, the American Foundation for Equal Rights, and attorneys Ted Olson and David Boies have shown tremendous fortitude and perseverance in their fight for marriage equality. With today’s announcement, we are one step closer to ensuring that gay and lesbian Californians – and, one day, our entire community nationwide – are able to join the institution of marriage and have their love and commitment respected equally.Marriage Equality USA
The momentum for the freedom to marry seems unstoppable. Three weeks ago, the President of the United States announced his support for marriage equality. Last week, the 1st Circuit Federal Court of Appeals held that the so-called Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. And today, the 9th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals upheld its earlier decision striking down Proposition 8. Nationwide polls have shown majority support for the freedom to marry for the last two years, and Californians now favor marriage equality by a 59 – 34 percent margin, according to the latest polling.National Center for Lesbian Rights
Today’s refusal by the Ninth Circuit to grant further review is a testament to the meticulous and well-reasoned opinion originally issued by the Court. While the supporters of Proposition 8 will now seek review by the U.S. Supreme Court, there is no doubt that they are on the wrong side of history. Excluding same-sex couples from the right to marry runs counter to our highest ideals of equality and fairness.More reactions to follow as they arrive...
Here's the ruling: The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. A judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. The matter failed to receive a majority of the votes of the non-recused active judges in favor of en banc consideration. Fed. R. App. P. 35. The petition for rehearing en banc is DENIED. The mandate is stayed for ninety days pending the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. If such a petition is filed, the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.Reactions and analysis to follow shortly....
For
Buddhism, faith doesn't mean the blind acceptance of teachings as
unquestionable dogmas. Rather, faith suggests a combination of trust in
the Buddha as a fully enlightened teacher, confidence in the Buddha and
in his guidance, and feelings of devotion and reverence towards the
Buddha. This quality of faith is to be strengthened because it's what
builds our own commitment to the entire practice.
|
