Jihad and the Meeting of Cultures

Jihad for me is walking into the Mesjid. As an American, it is a good exercise for me to see the things which are deeply wrong with my culture. They aren't easy to miss. However, walking into the Moscow Islamic Center, I can't help but remember the deeper problems which the many cultures which have embraced Islam have. This is despite the vast strength and profound benefits which I believe Islam has to offer the world. (I must believe this, or I wouldn't have decided to become a Muslim.)

Islamic-culture problems like inferior treatment of women, sexual violence, a kind of "culture nazi" view of shariah, hiding in the closet in Western cultures, conflating religion and politics (sometimes to the point of violence), are easy to spot for an American observer. Part of this is because these problems are emphasized by the media. Part of this, though, is that these problems quite obviously exist. And I can't deny that. And that is why walking into the Mesjid is jihad for me.

As I journey through the world of being a Muslim, I see a great deal of hope and offering in the religion of Islam. I believe it is the best religion in the world. But it's always difficult for me to walk into the Mesjid, knowing my staunch unwillingness to discard my Stetson cowboy hat as a North Idaho Libertarian, nor to set aside my uniquely American beliefs about the world. I am an American. And I hold a far less cynical view of American culture than many of my Muslim sisters and brothers.

This makes the Eid al-Fitr gatherings and the public worship very difficult for me. Sometimes, I decide just to pray at home. It's too frightening to go to the Mosque. I willingly adopt the ideology which France would jam down my throat — I keep my religion private. I realize it is difficult particularly for my Muslim brothers, too. At first, I was hurt by the marked lack of "Aslaam-o-alikum" greetings at the local Eid al-Fitr feast. But then, upon reflection, I realized that a lot of the people there probably didn't know I was a Muslim. And, quite reasonably, they were afraid of me; a North-Idahoan wearing a Stetson cowboy hat is not someone an Arab Muslim immigrant wants to piss off. I don't want to make things this difficult for these Muslims, but I have to.

Why do I have to? Because of the ease at which the 12-year-old Pakistani Muslim came up behind me, said "Aslaam-o-alikum," and shook my hand. He treated me as a true brother: with a child's courage, undaunted by the baggage of Islamic-American relations. He will return to Pakistan with a positive view of North-Idahoans wearing cowboy hats, which insha'Allah has tremendous impact on the world's path towards peace.

Muhammad (sallallahu aleyhi wa salaam) said that the second best deed for a Muslim to do, just below belief in Allah (subhana wa t'alla) and His prophets. So I suppose I still, with the help of the more courageous of my Muslim brothers, will visit the Mesjid. Sometimes, with my punk-Libertarian upbringing, my Islamic-Buddhist beliefs, and my Stetson cowboy hat, I feel like my very existence is an act of jihad. But I have to do it. Because I feel I have a positive contribution to make. I hope, earnestly, that all these things help.

Eid Mubarrak.

**Note: Saying Islam is the best religion in the world in no way invalidates my Buddhist perspective. Buddhism has religious aspects, which I believe are Islam — or, at the very least, if you want to get technical, they are proto-Islamic. But primarily, Buddhism isn't a religion, but rather a system of mind-yoga which leads to truth, including religious truth, which was formulated as a radical contre-puntal to Hindu yoga. Buddhism is a philosophical mind-training technique and world-outlook, not so much a religion.

A Case for Islamic Buddhism

In Buddhism, it is said that only the Buddha's (PBUH) teaching can remove suffering and bring about joy for yourself permanently. It is said that Buddha (PBUH) was a perfect teacher, a teacher for the whole world, and that his teachings were flawless, having the quality of being something you could rely on absolutely. It is even said that Buddha was a perfect teacher.

In Islam, it is said that those who reject the faith of Islam will go to hell. Now, the wisdom prevalent in both communities is that it's better to just choose one, or just choose the other, and not choose both. I would like to contend with this notion.

While it is said that teachers like Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT) share a perfect message for the whole world, yet it can be said that in some subtle way, they have a flaw. How can they have a flaw? Not in the sense you might think. They do not have a flaw which in any way diminishes their statuses as perfect teachers. No flaws there. They do not have a flaw in that there are areas upon which they cannot be relied. No flaws there. Where, then, is the flaw?

The flaw is this: when you apply Buddha's sutras and tantras to a situation where, perhaps, another dharma may be appropriate, then YOU have a flaw. The application of one teacher's teaching to one situation where it is not appropriate is a flaw.

Now, both religions make the claim that they are given for the whole world. How then can one apply to one situation and not to another, where the other applies more readily? The answer is really, actually, quite simple. Buddha's (PBUH) teachings are vertical, Muhammad's (PBUH) teachings are horizontal. They both apply to the whole world, but they apply in different ways.

When you get right down to it, each of these teachers was just one man. Any teacher, no matter who they are, no matter how great they are, will have to tailor their teachings to their students. They will do so with the expectation that there are other buddhas in the world who will step in when necessary. Every teacher is like this, without exception. I contend that Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT) complement each other perfectly, and together, they form a religion for the whole world, just as each of them claims, but in different ways.

When a Muslim prays, he or she prays five times a day, in a specific yogic format, every day. Each prayer has a set structure and guidelines for completion. Ramadan fast is conducted similarly. And zakat, the giving of one's wealth to charity, follows a specific guideline (2.5% of savings per year). The Hajj pilgrimage has guidelines, too. These all fill out a mystical system of practice which can be followed.

Nevertheless, this system does not apply completely. Why? Because it is a specific yoga, and not a mystical enterprise. In other words, it extends horizontally, to encompass the whole world, externally, but not internally. This is where Buddha (PBUH) steps in. His enterprise was almost entirely internal. Everything was secondary to internal meditation, and almost nothing had to do with external yogic practices. Out of necessity, of course, yogic practices were maintained and developed over time by various Buddhist gurus with their disciples. Make no mistake, all these practices will eventually lead to enlightenment. However, it is my contention that both of them, when combined, form a perfect alchemical conceptual geometry which will lead to enlightenment more quickly and more assuredly than either one alone.

Now, of course, people may be attached to their own spiritual traditions and say, "I can do it all from within my own tradition." This is true. But in so doing, you will be throwing away certain specific methods of doing things which bring about greater benefit. Suppose you're a Buddhist and you want to learn both sutra and tantra in accordance with the Lam Rim all-encompassing path. You find a teacher who spend his entire life studying sutra, and only a little bit studying tantra. Now, you could, technically, make great achievements studying from this teacher alone. But yet, if you study under this teacher and excel in sutra, then learn of a teacher who has spent their entire life studying tantra and only a little sutra, why not study under both teachers and get a more complete view? This is what all the great practitioners in the past have done, and by promoting Islamic Buddhism, I am merely attempting to promote the same practice. Buddha (PBUH) excelled in internal looking. Muhammad (PBUH) excelled in external looking. They both excelled in the same act of looking, but in different ways.

Now what does this have to say about other teachers, such as Padmasambhava, Tsong Khapa, or Christ (PBUH)? Naturally, with regards to certain areas of expertise, you will need help from different teachers. All teachers know how to cooperate, and every teacher recognizes the pure benefit of other teachers who are also pure. I say, in accordance with the main teachings of Muhammad and Buddha (PBUT), follow them first as your main practice, but also study the other teachers as the need arises and as your curiosity and free time dictate. All the prophets are legitimate buddha teachers, and though not every buddha is a prophet, every buddha is a teacher, and a worthwhile

Practical Religion: Pray Five Times a Day to Increase Efficiency

Everybody knows that prayer is what keeps us in touch with the Ultimate, with the Source of Life. Certainly this is true in Islam as well. But did you know that there are practical benefits to offering salat five times a day as well?

When we organize our lives, it's best to have some kind of routine. We have to know when we're going to get up in the morning, how we're going to plan our day, and when we're going to go to bed. We have to have this routine to get our lives in order so that we can most effectively use our time. Muslim salat is a great way to do this.

Muslims everywhere pray five times a day according to the prescribed times of the day. The five prayers are: Fajr, Dhuhr, Asr, Maghrib, and Isha. Fajr time is when light first glints over the horizon, and when the birds first start singing. Dhuhr is when the sun is highmost. Asr is in between Dhuhr and Maghrib, and Maghrib is when the sun has just finished setting. Isha is when all light from the sun is gone.

Since I've started praying five times a day, I've noticed a definite change in my ability to get things done. For one thing, I get up at the same time, regularly, at around 8am or 7am. After I get up, I have plenty of times to get my day in order and get some work done before Dhuhr. After Dhuhr, I usually find time to work on a primary project of mine, and then after Dhuhr usually I work on secondary projects. I can work a little bit after Isha as well.

It's nice to set your life rhythms in synchronization with the sun. This helps relieve exhaustion and gives you a broader view of your life's work. I find being in sync with the sun allows you to see life from the sun's perspective, that there's always another day, that you don't have to do things in fits and starts. You can become comfortable with the fact that the work is never really fully done. You just get up, get your work done, and move on to the next day.

One point to keep in mind is the nature of the prayer. If you are a Muslim, the best prayer of course is the salah according to Muhammad PBUH. But if you're not Muslim, you can still find benefits from praying five times a day at the prescribed times. Keep in mind, though, that prayer should be a break. You should take a break from the world and acknowledge that there are greater things than just keeping busy doing your life's work all the time. The nature of the break from the world should include some kind of contemplation—inner contemplation and spiritual contemplation. It should be maybe five to ten minutes of contemplation.

While I don't think it hurts to pray according to other traditions, I feel there is no need to resist learning to pray according to the Islamic fashion. The Islamic method of prayer is nice because it incorporates many different aspects of spirituality. You have a form of hatha yoga, where you place your body in a specific pose to reflect an inner state. You also have mantra—saying mind-protecting verses which help you contemplate. Also, you have specific, liturgic contemplations, and when your head and nose are on the ground, you get to improvise and come up with your own requests and speak from the heart.

In the Christian tradition, there's a lot of speaking from the heart, but the other aspects are lacking. There's no yoga, and no liturgy. Or maybe there's a whole lot of liturgy, but very little speaking from the heart. Or maybe it lasts too long to be practical five times per day. So it's not quite the same.

The Buddhist tradition is an interesting case to compare, and illustrates why I feel I am a Muslim-Buddhist rather than just a Muslim or just a Buddhist. I feel the Buddhist vipassana meditation technique is present during the whole salah, and indeed, according to the Islamic tradition, the instructions on how to keep your mind state focused during salat is pretty much the same as in Buddhism. In fact, vipassana is a meditation technique that can enrich any spiritual tradition or religion, and it will improve your Christian prayers as well, or even your occult practices if you get into that. Vipassana will improve pretty much everything except doing evil, because it will transform your evil acts into compassionate skillful means to combat demon-enemies. But the fact that vipassana is so generalized can be a bit of a weakness. In other words, it's nice to have ONE prayer that you do, all the time, which you know is being done by millions of other Muslims, at the same time. The spiritual connection, as well as the practical benefits, and sheer convenience, are some of the benefits of doing salat.

If you have trouble discovering what time salat is, there is a great website called IslamicFinder.org, which has prayer times on it. Additionally, it has apps which you can download to your mobile device which will keep track of prayer times in your area, and automatically adjust them as the Earth shifts on its axis. If you wish, you can even allow these apps to automatically play a call to prayer (called "athan") during prayer times.

On the Legitimacy of Israel as a State

I questioned, in a Facebook post, the legitimacy of Israel's self-proclaimed right to exist. It seems to me, anyway, that God did not give Israel to the Jews, but rather England did. And I think Palestine is the main test of Israel's right to exist.

The way Israel is treating the Palestinians is not justifiable. Israel isolates them from the outside world. It would be better if the Palestinians could leave, or become a part of Israel. But this is impossible. Why? Because Israel sees it in their best interests to isolate them. The problem, of course, is that the Palestinians probably have a more legitimate claim to that land than Israel.

Israel is forced to battle Palestine. Peace is impossible for them. Why? Because if they make peace, the Arab states will take advantage of a weak stance and attack Israel one way or another. I believe this is the case. Also, I believe that there are Arab states who might ultimately win in the conflict (if peace were made) which are worse states than Israel. States like Syria.

But really, all this is a battle more for the State of Israel than for anyone else. Israel was founded on questionable principles. The right of an ethnic-based State to be formed by an external oppressor because it's in the Bible is questionable. The right of any ethnic-based state to be formed is questionable. If Israel has any shred of legitimacy to its existence, I think the true test will be Palestine. Also, I think Israel fully realizes this, which is why they are in so much trouble about it.

Israel has very few options. They can't exterminate the Palestinians. They can't let them emigrate to Israel or elsewhere. They can't make peace with them. They can't fight them too hard. They can't fight them too soft. There are no choices for them. And the way they behave in Palestine is very similar to the way a failing regime behaves when its legitimacy comes into question. They imprison people without cause, place them in concentration camps, incite violence to legitimize violence, spend more money on security than research, and so forth. I've never been to Palestine, but from what I've read of the situation there, it's like a concentration camp. It's very similar to psychiatry. A failing regime grasping at straws to ward off its inevitable defeat.

I've had experience living in a concentration camp kind of existence. And when you're inside the concentration camp, sometimes it's a difficult decision you have to make whether to threaten or use violence or not. Because sometimes an oppressor will only respond to violence. This is a fact. I had to threaten to stab hospital wards with a pen in order to force them to bring food to my seclusion room. The decision was part of a long series of pressures I put on them (this one being the only truly violent one), which probably resulted in enough food to survive. Barely.

But oppressors all ultimately act the same. They inevitably spend all their energy on bolstering security rather than gaining knowledge or helping people. This is why fewer and fewer people choose to be psychiatrists: the pay really isn't very good, the training is exhausting, and the fact that they will be pigeonholed into an existence where they must oppress people every day really makes it hard. Why is the pay not so good? Probably because psychiatry prisons are locked down tighter than military compounds. They spend all their money on more and more traumatic seclusion rooms, rather than actually helping people, or gaining knowledge. Why don't they spend money on knowledge? Because as research comes out about psychiatry, it shows them that they're all doing it wrong; that psychiatry is an illegitimate institution.

And the fact that these oppressors act the same, when they're not bolstered by an external oppressive force, indicates that they all eventually cannibalize themselves in the end. So the smartest strategy for someone who is NOT living in a concentration camp system is non-violence. It is to put political pressure on the oppressors, forcing them to cannibalize themselves, without resorting to violence, and thereby legitimizing their oppression. The problem comes when your motivation is bad. People with bad motivation will collect up these victims of oppression and pray on their sufferings to the point of inciting them to violence. It will legitimize both oppressors, until they go to war and one oppressor is defeated. All oppressors act the same.

In a lot of ways, America is behaving the same way. But I'm not sure that the outcome for any of these oppressors is set in stone. I feel America will survive. America is a legitimate state with a troubled history of oppression. That's how I feel. But in order to survive, America has to do soul searching. This is what is happening with the Occupy / Tea Party movements. This is happening internally within the Republican Party, I'm aware, and may also be happening in the Democratic Party. Obama has made surprising decisions, such as the decision following the will of the people not to go to war with Syria. Even this decision may have been a mistake, but it's an example of soul searching.

The problem for Israel is that I'm not sure they have the luxury to be able to do soul searching, surrounded as they are by all these Arab states who do not believe in their right to exist. America is a world superpower, very rich, and having the most powerful military in the world. We can do soul searching. Allowing Israel to do soul searching for the benefit of Palestinians, unfortunately, is not very much on the to-do list for these Arab states. A lot of them are very authoritarian, and rely on strong security forces. And the problem is, these security states require some kind of propaganda to keep their publics supportive of the current regimes. Palestine is a good propaganda point for any dictator in a Muslim majority state.

So really, the right for Israel to exist is less of a test for Israel as it is a test for Arab Muslims. Are these Muslims going to point to the passages in the Qur'an which say that Jews will be hiding behind rocks and the rocks will tell them to kill them? While conveniently ignoring the passages enjoining us not to dispute with the People of the Book except by means better than mere disputation? Or are these Muslims going to work to promote more and more functional democracies at home, so they can deal with Israel intelligently? This is the test. Arabs as a nation have a right to exist on their own land, of course, but many of their states, I feel, are as illegitimate as Israel's or more so. The fate of Israel rests on the fate of Palestine. And the fate of Palestine, and Palestinians, I feel, rests on the ability for Arab Muslims to combat oppression in their own states so they can restrain their own militants from attacking Israel, and allow Israel to sort out its right to existence on its own. If Israel is purely an oppressor, the more it becomes isolated from support from the outside, the more they will cannibalize themselves. If not, they will survive, and peace will prevail.

Degenerate Times

I think it is important to note a couple of things about Buddhist prophesies. First and foremost, a prophesy is not a death sentence. We in the West are so particular about details that we often think of prophesy in the strictest possible terms. Thus, we see it as equally prophetic if Buddha prophesizes that we will live to be 10, as if I or someone prophesizes that my dog will eat a bagel at 2pm Eastern Standard Time next Monday before taking a walk. But Allah is greater than that. We can't simply confine prophesy to strictly worldly terms without any room for freedom of choice.

The two prophesies I would like to mention are Buddhist prophesies: the prophesy of degenerate times, which I believe dates back to the Buddha himself, and the Kalachakra prophesy.

In the prophesy of degenerate times, it is prophesied that our life-span will degenerate gradually over the next thousand or so years until we live to be only 10 years old. Then, there will be a 7 Days War, which of course will last seven days. It is said that the slaughter will be so great that afterwards humans will be so rare that when they encounter one another, they will kiss each other on the mouth. And after this 7 Days War, people will be so profoundly affected by the killing that they will vow never to kill again, at which point the life-span will increase to 14 years.

Gradually, over the period of a couple thousand years, people will renounce evil after evil, and the life-span will increase until it reaches 80,000 again, which is what it was before people began to degenerate. To this, I will add a couple of senses of my own: people I think will be drinking Boyds Coffee, and some will be doing Yamantaka practice. Those were what have been revealed to me through valid cognition and observation.

Now, there are a couple things to note here. As I said: a prophesy is not a death sentence. If someone were to ask me to sum up my philosophy while standing on one foot, I would tell them: it is possible to use the energy of degeneration to one's advantage. That is the prime focus of everything I've been seeking to expound upon for my entire life, and I suspect insh'Allah it will be until I die. I can't imagine me trying to teach anything else, what with my peculiar experiences. And it is an important fact.

All prophesies, including the most damning, are empty of inherent existence. So on some level, we don't know fully what they are talking about. Will the Earth be a desolate wasteland, devoid of life, after the 7 Days War? Will it be like the movie Mad Max taken to an absolute extreme? I contend no. The prophesy, I think, applies mainly to humans qua humans. It does not apply to humans qua yakshas, humans qua nagas, humans qua devas, and humans qua Buddhas. In addition to this, the prophesy applies only generally. People will probably live to be as old as maybe 30, or even older, during these times. And while human-to-human contact may be rare, a survivor human may well encounter many nagas, devas, and Buddhas in his or her quest to find other humans. The Earth will not be a desolate wasteland, but will remain rich with life. This is my opinion.

Furthermore, we have to understand an important point regarding degeneration. It is not our fault that we will live to be only 10 years old. And, we will still have brain technology as is being developed even today to make our lives more meaningful. A wandering 10-year-old after the 7 Days War may well make contact with another human over Facebook telepathically using brain technology.

The other point regarding degeneration leads into my discussion of the Kalachakra prophesy. According to this prophesy, in India, a Muslim will rise to power and claim to be the heir of an Islamic prophesy. A vast force, led by Buddha Manjushri, will then descend from the heavens, engage in holy warfare with this Muslim and his followers, and defeat them. After this, all non-Indic invaders will be routed from India, and humanity will begin to recover from the degenerate times.

As you can see, the two prophesies are related. They both refer to the point at which society ceases to degenerate. The relation is important, because it points to the very heart of the nature of degeneration. I recently became a Muslim, in addition to being a Buddhist, and my intent is to learn the very heart of this religion, as it is important to me. (I have had more intimate connection with many more Buddhas through Islam than through all my 15 years as a Buddhist.) Obviously, then, I am against the view that the Kalachakra prophesy prophesizes the downfall and defeat of Islam. But I don't think the prophesy is inauthentic.

From what I've observed of Muslims today, the ongoing trend seems to be that while they are practicing their religion, they are subtlely involved in what I would call "the cult of the white water." Ordinary water, as a metaphysical substance, is a metaphor for emptiness. In other words, emptiness is like water. It dissolves all things. It is clear. Many creatures live in it. It is vast as the sea. It forms rain. It carves mountains. And so forth. But what color is water? Well, ultimately, water is clear. However, it is also very highly correct to say that water is white. When it freezes, it is white. As it moves about, it froths at the tips of waves, and reflects lights, and ends up becoming white.

Muslims want to be like white water. They want to purify themselves to the utmost extent, become fully distilled of every little stain, and rub themselves clean all the time. They want to be at the tips of the waves, reaching into the void. But one thing they may perhaps overlook is that water is also black. It is equally correct to say water is black as it is to say it is white. Why? When water is gathered together densely in one place, if you peer into its depths, it is black. In a way, water is as black as it is white, but no less pure.

The West, for myriad historical reasons, seems to be deeply involved in "the cult of the black water." The West likes to examine physical things to their depths and uncover their deepest secrets. It also is far less concerned with purity, and riding the tips of waves, seeking to deeply immerse itself into physical phenomena.

What happens when "the cult of the white water" meets "the cult of the black water?" The result is the 7 Days War, which will culminate in at least some small realization that really, water is clear. It may manifest as white, or as black. But ultimately, it is clear. Following this, I suspect life will be much like the famous Andy Warhol movie Chelsea Girls: one side black, one side white. And the result will be purity. Clarity.

I suspect that with regards to the Kalachakra prophesy, Western countries, particularly the United States of America, will play a very important role with regards to the cult of the black water, in answer to India's cult of the white water. Manjushri, in my opinion, will probably come from America.

It is not good to become overly involved in either the cult of the white water or the cult of the black water, because water is clear. However, recognizing and honoring water manifesting as black or white, or as rainbows, and so forth, is important. Light refracted in water, or reflected, or absorbed, still remains light. And ultimately, we are beings of light. My ideas, as they stand now, have to do with blackness. I feel this is important, because too many people are overly concerned with white, while we have a natural tendency to avoid blackness. This is a mistake.

It is a human mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, and as equally dangerous as any mistake, potentially costing real people their lives. I suspect that today many people in Pakistan are dying unnecessarily because overly religious Islamic zealots want their society to be pristinely pure and white in color. The Taliban won't let people listen to music, or make art, or do pretty much anything, because they want to wear robes of white. It is so dangerous to be a Muslim today, I feel, because of the resistance to experiencing Western society, which is the dominant and globalized form of society in the world today. I'm worried that concern with issues such as playing music, or drawing representative art, will condemn foreign muslims to poverty and powerlessness. Why? Because it is impossible to move the hearts and minds of the people without making movies, and you can't make movies without drawing pictures and writing music. Period.

Purity is important, but it is not that important. We have to remember that good Muslims are like doctors, and that they do not come to the healthy, but to the sick. And anyway, it is impossible to be one hundred percent pure. Frankly, the fact that the religious people most concerned with purity are the ones who do the most damage convinces me that purity is sometimes a worse evil than sin. If this isn't true, then why are so many terrorists going around calling themselves Boko Haram? The lesson from this is what I consider to be my most important and, hopefully, enduring contribution to moral knowledge everywhere. This is why, I'm certain, I have lived my life. And there is far greater to share and more contributions as well. I'm not always the best at keeping the faith, but I hope my message has reached at least some people in the right way. That is my wish.

Practical Religion: Use the Teachings of Christ to Increase Food Supply

In the West, we're all familiar with Christ's miracles — feeding thousands of people with just five loaves of bread and two fish, and so forth. Now we may not be able to perform miracles like that, but using the teachings of Christ and the early Christians, we can increase our food supply and decrease costs if we live in groups. Here's how it works.

Normally, when we live in groups, we use Sharpies to mark up which food is ours, and everybody gets to eat their own food only. However, this is an inefficient way of managing food supply. Instead, use this rule: all the food in the house is community food, provided everyone contributes. This is pretty much the only way to ensure that everyone eats properly. Why? Because when everyone contributes food, people will naturally specialize in what kinds of food they buy. Joe might buy all the vegetables, while Karen buys the grains, and Jeffery may specialize in microwavable instant foods. Because everyone is contributing something, we can rely on other people in the household having the other food we need when we buy only our specialized food. And because we're buying specialized food, we can take advantage of deals and decrease prices by buying in bulk.

Note that people naturally specialize. It isn't necessary to plan out who will buy what food. The system actually works better when people organically decide what food to buy based on a number of factors, including need, price, knowledge, taste, and so forth. But people will end up specializing, and part of the point is to welcome this.

One reason why this works out better for everyone is because the food we buy will be less likely to go bad. Often, we're forced to buy more portions than we need if we are buying just for ourselves. This is especially true with fresh produce. But yet, we must buy the food or we will go hungry. This is less of a problem when we are buying for more than one person.

One subsequent effect of this is that we can take advantage of foods we don't need too often, and increase the richness of the diversity of our food. For instance, we may have a craving for radishes one day. But we know that we won't really want to eat radishes every day. So we buy enough radishes for one person one or two days, which is possible in most supermarkets, while buying the staple foods we need for the rest of our diet. That way, we satisfy our cravings and no food goes to waste.

We can also take advantage of cropping of foods. For instance, if we buy local, there may be an influx of a great deal of specialized food, like say, fresh Kokanee Salmon. Since we know we will all be eating it, we can buy more than we normally would. There will be leftovers, and none will go to waste.

We may balk at this idea because we won't necessarily be catering to our own particular tastes in food. Since we will be forced to eat the food of others, we won't necessarily have any guarantee that we will get our own favorite foods. But if we take a larger view, and look past merely our own tastes, forgiving the trespasses of others onto our food diets, we will begin to understand that our diets will be diversified, which is healthy for us, and that we won't go hungry on a low budget. Because of this, we can free up our money for more interesting activities than just eating every day. We can be more generous and liberal with our overall budgets, because the food budget will be less. All in all, following this system will work out better for everyone.

Practical Religion: Binary Buddhism

I'm sure you've heard of applying Buddhism to improve your spiritual quality. But there are very practical applications as well. For instance, the practice of breathing meditation, in combination with binary counting, can be used to tell time. This can be useful for telling time at a bus stop when there isn't a clock, or for timing sesshins or meditation sessions without a clock or phone or timer.

Here's how it works. First, time how long it takes to breathe in and out twenty-one times. This means one in-breath, one out-breath, times twenty-one. For me, it takes about two minutes. Then, make a strong habit of counting up to twenty-one breaths then returning back to one while doing breathing meditation. Do it like this: "In-breath, out-breath, 1. In-breath, out-breath, 2. ... In-breath, out-breath, 21. In-breath, out-breath, 1."

It will take some attention at first to get used to counting up to twenty-one when you breathe. Here I find the motivation to religiously follow the practice comes in handy. If you are able to count up to twenty-one without skipping numbers and without losing count, it means you're paying attention. If the religious goal of your practice is to know how to pay attention, this can be a strong motivation for keeping track of numbers. Pretty soon, you'll be doing it automatically.

Next comes counting in binary using the fingers. You can count up to 2047 in binary using your fingers. To do this, you must understand the math. In binary, there are only two digits: zero and one. In base-ten, the system we're used to, there are ten digits, and when you get to the last digit (9), you reset back to one in the second column and zero in the first, and so forth. In binary, it's similar, except you reset once you get to one. So, for example, the first four integers in sequence from one to four in binary are, 1, 10, 11, 100.

When counting in binary using the fingers, for the right hand, use the thumb as the first digit, the pointer finger as the second, and so forth. Treat the thumb of the left hand as the sixth digit, and the pointer finger of the left hand as the seventh, and so forth. When the finger is held up, that indicates a one. When it is closed, it indicates a zero. Thus, for the number 1010, which is ten, in your right hand, your pinky will be closed, your ring finger will be open, your middle finger closed, your pointer finger open, and your thumb closed.

You'll want to practice counting with your fingers until you're very proficient at it. The whole idea for the purposes of telling time using the breath is that you are going to count in binary the number of times you reach 21 breaths. Remember, each cycle of 21 breaths (for me, anyway) is 2 minutes. So ten cycles of 21, or 1010 in binary, is equal to 20 minutes. Fifteen cycles, or 1111 in binary, will be 30 minutes. An hour will be 30 cycles, or 11110 in binary (pinky, ring, middle, and pointer fingers up, thumb down).

Depending on the setting, you may not be able to use your hands to count the number of times you reach 21 breaths. For example, if you're leading a meditation session, you won't be able to use your hands. In this case, it's best to visualize counting in binary by holding up imaginary fingers in front of you. One thing which will help you remember which fingers to hold up is to remember that each zero digit represents a dedication to the buddhas, while each one digit represents the body of a new buddha to be dedicated. That way, when the digits switch, the meaning is significant and more easy to remember.

This method is accurate to the minute. If it is less accurate for you, you may breathe more slowly or more quickly. Instead of trying to change the rate of breathing, change the number of breaths in a cycle or the number of minutes each cycle is worth, or both. Work out a system that works for you.

In addition to being useful for telling time, this method also helps improve concentration in general. Concentration has a number of practical benefits, helping you to better do a variety of tasks including studying, listening to lectures, conversation, cooking, etc.

Muslims and Americans

It's interesting to note that Muslims and America are similar in that they both have global ambitions. According to the Qur'an, Islam is a religion for the whole world. Somewhat similarly, America has always had ambitions to be the world empire. Global imperialism of this style was descended from the Roman Empire, which also had global ambitions, but lacked the means to meaningfully rule the world. Right now, there are a lot of people who feel that the global ambitions of Islam and the global ambitions of America are in conflict. But a close examination of the nature of these ambitions should illustrate that that's not the case.

A global brotherhood.

Islam is meant to be a global brotherhood of believers, marked by religious ideals like faith, goodwill, and good social conduct. But nowhere in the Qur'an is it indicated that this brotherhood is to be political. Interestingly, political order and statehood seem to be missing from the Qur'an. What you will find in the Qur'an, however, is an edict that there is a good reason for mankind to be split up into different nations. "O mankind! We ... made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other" (49:13). This lays the foundation for cooperation and brotherhood between nations and political entities. If we focus on Islam, in theory, America, as just another nation among many, ought to be on friendly terms with Islam.

The nation of unquenchable fire.

America is criticized on a couple of counts. For one, our culture is very materialistic. Money holds a great deal of importance, the advertising industry and its attendant consumerism is all-pervasive, and the thirst for paying customers of American commodities is never quenched. For another, our government and education system are secular. Religion is deliberately placed at a distance and diminished in importance to a great degree. The second point seems to indicate that we are averse to religious guidance in a visceral way, and the first point seems to show that we are simultaneously attracted to non-religious things. Thus it seems we're doubly anti-religious. To a culture where religion is everything, that doesn't go down easy.

I, however, think American secularism is misunderstood. Secularism doesn't negate religion; it protects it. Adopting a secularist culture is like surrounding yourself with an unquenchable fire. Material goods are fundamentally unsatisfying, hence the fire is unquenchable. But material goods are forceful in their ability to transform things, and the results of the transformation are evident. If used wisely, a secularist perspective can help transform some situations into opportunities to express religion.

Religion is focused on specific infinite-scope phenomena. It is not secular. Secularism is focused on specific singular-scope phenomena. The nature of the dichotomy is not one of enmity. The Qur'an says, "And of everything we have created pairs: that ye may receive instruction" (51:49). Religion and secularism are a dichotomy and a pair. They are opposite ideas which both exist in reality. It is logical, then, that given time and ambition, a secularist empire would rise up as well as a religious one. But unless I'm missing something, the import of this is exactly nothing. Night and day also both exist. You can argue that religion is more important than secularism, which I think is pretty much true. But you can also argue that day is better than night. That doesn't mean that one or the other doesn't have a purpose.

Clearly, if secularists and religious people are at odds right now, the reason must lay beyond the mere ideas themselves. The Middle East is certainly riddled with problems, and many of these problems are caused by the West and by America. But some of America's problems are caused by America, and some of the Middle East's problems are caused by the Middle East. That doesn't mean that America is fundamentally at odds with America or the Middle East with the Middle East. Whatever the trauma of Western civilization that has led to the conflict, we should take heart that it is at the very least not fundamental to our differing perspectives as human beings. I think if we see it this way, it might help us understand one another better when we talk about the Middle East.

A Modest and Measured Defense of Freemasonry

Now it is possible, according to certain logical arguments involving ethical uncertainty (i.e. "you don't know what you're getting into" arguments), to argue that joining a secret society (for everyone) is an unethical act. I actually have a fairly specific and well-founded argument for this. However, that's not the purpose of this post.

Interestingly enough, this post is actually in defense of Freemasonry (and therefore, by extension, the choice to join the Freemasons). My motivations for this I'll save for later. More important, right now, is the argument. Freemasonry, I'm fairly certain, is among the class of things of which it is capable of being objective. (Despite their secrets.) And I think, despite the fact that I'm not a Freemason, in this socio-political climate it's a good idea to make a measured defense of Freemasonry. Or, at least, to ward off a couple of specific attacks leveled against it.

There are all sorts of attacks against Freemasonry which propose a lot of hogwash. For instance, that they're trying (or have succeeded) in enslaving humanity. The less disturbing form of this argument is that they are actively involved in conspiratorial acts. However, there is no evidence of this whatsoever. No one has ever, to my knowledge, produced a single bit of evidence that they were trying to overthrow or control the government, with the exception, of course, of the American revolution itself. However, it's quite a stretch to call this a conspiracy. It's more along the lines of nation building. And it's a little hypocritical for the people who level this argument, as they often do, to go on and defend the constitution, Democracy, and even ordinary workings of the United States Government in its natural (noncorrupted) state.

The more disturbing form of this argument is what I would call a conspiracy theory. (As opposed to what I stated above, which is not a theory, but a hypothesis.) A theory is defined as an understanding of the workings of a studied thing based on empirically observed principles which lead to predictable results. A conspiracy theory, as I understand it, is a specific sort of theory involving the workings of a studied thing (generally the United States or even the world or universe itself) which postulates a conspiracy as one of the central principles governing its predicted behavior. Thus we get the schizophrenic ramblings of deluded people who say things like, "The Illuminati are the darkest of the dark forces of nature, a demon who has been around since the beginning of time, physically incarnated here on Earth, for the purpose of controlling the light of wisdom and keeping everybody in the dark." This is subtlely different than a conspiracy hypothesis. Hypotheses generally have a beginning, a middle, and an end. That's what makes them testable. Principles, on the other hand, which are constituent to theories, are generally not really testable. That's why we say that theories are statistically reliable, as opposed to fundamentally true.

Conspiracy theories are disturbing because it is impossible to postulate a change in a theory. Theories may be true or false, but they pretty much don't change. The only way in which they change is by being elaborated upon, or built upon. Therefore, if you really believe in conspiracy theory, as a theory (and not merely a tentative hypothesis), that implies that the situation you're proposing is fundamentally unchangeable. Which further implies that any fight against evil is ultimately futile. Now perhaps this belief is the result of racial trauma from when the Anglo Saxons had a pagan belief system in which evil ultimately triumphed over good, so perhaps it's understandable. But it certainly isn't true. And anyway, blaming a particular group for being a constituent of this kind of a theory is totally ridiculous, and honestly, it says more about you then it does about them.

Now it may be reasonable to say, "Nathan, let's look at the evidence." Okay, fair enough. I've given the statement of negative evidence, that there is no evidence to suggest that Freemasonry as an institution is reprehensible, which in our legal system anyway, is enough to exonerate the accused. Nevertheless, it might be good to examine the positive evidence, since I have to a small degree, informally, studied The Craft. What exactly is Freemasonry? From what I understand, it is a moral philosophy based on a certain set of principles. Central to Freemasonry is the allegory of Hiram Abiff, who was according to legend the chief architect of the Temple of Solomon. He was murdered, the legend goes, by three workers who wanted access to secrets so they could gain a higher status. However, they repented, and prayed for death, at which point they were killed by King Solomon. Apparently this is central to the initiation rites or rituals of Craft Freemasons. It is said by Masonic scholars that this story is constituent of an understanding of the universe: that we are all separated from God, and that the ultimate divine knowledge has been cut off from us, but that we may yet have some chance of obtaining divine light through the use of our intellectual capacities as human beings. Frankly these ideas don't contradict anything in any Abrahamic religion, so they should come as no surprise. The story may be similar in some respects to a conspiracy theory, in that it postulates that the workings of the universe involve a conspiracy. But subtle distinctions are important. If you recall, a conspiracy theory involves a conspiracy as an active constituent of the universe: it is a conspiracy which has been present since the beginning of time and is yet continuing. This story, however, involves a conspiracy which has already been completed. It isn't the conspiracy which is constituent of the workings of the universe, but the effects of the conspiracy. In my opinion, as an archetype, it reflects the belief that our sufferings are the result of previous conspiracies which we are working to repair. The fact that it happened may be permanent, but the karmic results of the conspiracy nevertheless are not, as implied by the "glimmering light in the East" (the fourth section of the Temple of Solomon which was not guarded by one of the murderers of Hiram Abiff). As an archetype, it is merely the acknowledgement that conspiracies exist; that suffering exists; that self-condemnation exists. It goes no further than that. Unless, of course, I am mistaken. And in any case, such a story and understanding of the universe in no way implies any kind of conspiracy on the part of the Masons. If a Freemason, perchance, were to engage in a conspiracy, it is probable that they would be considered as equal to the party who killed Abiff, and worthy of contempt.

So much for Craft Masonry. One might say that while, perhaps, the Craft Masons are not part of "the conspiracy," they are in fact low ranking Masons, and that if we really want to get the culprits, we should look at the Templars. But, again, there is no evidence that the Templars are conspirators. Unfortunately, I know very little about the content of the rituals of this group but for one piece of historical evidence. If memory serves me right, Aleister Crowley had a run-in with the Templars when he was forming his secret society, the Ordo Templi Orientis (the Thelemites). Some of the initiation rites he composed apparently infringed on the intellectual property of the Scottish Rite (Templars), as it was too similar to one of their own. After some correspondence, Crowley rewrote most of the rituals. Since Crowley was principally interested in the occult, this leads me to suspect that whatever the Templars profess, it has something to do with the occult. (Otherwise, why would Crowley even approach the subject?) However, this is hardly conclusive, and not very important anyway.

The real evidence I'd like to consider is the historical / circumstantial evidence. The Knights Templar was formed by the Poor Knights of Solomon, who were a militant group of Catholics who participated in the Crusades. From what I hear, they were ordered to travel all over the place in the Holy Land. Some have postulated that this is because they were searching for the holy grail, or some other magical object. Whatever the case, they made the decision to flee from the Holy Land, declare themselves Freemasons (who were at that time a challenge to the power of the Catholic Church), and establish themselves in Scotland. Now it could be that they actually found the holy grail, and that their intent was an occult, magical dominance of this Planet Terra. But I find it far more likely that the sight of Jerusalem drenched in blood so deep you had to wade through it really hit home, and they had some kind of realization of the futility of the Crusades, or perhaps of war in general, and decided to form a loyal opposition to the Catholic Church.

And even if they were involved in the occult, it is certain that the Catholic Church was also involved in the occult. The difference is that while the Catholic Church has always been involved in occult domination of a purely intellectual nature, the fact that the Scottish Rite declared themselves Freemasons (stoneworkers), and the general understanding of particularly British philosophies involving empiricism and rationality over subjective intellectualism, it is quite probable to my way of thinking that the occult commitments of the Scottish Rites involve a declaration of defense for Mother Earth. With the Catholic Church ordering people to perform insanely expensive occultist acts (such as moving gigantic Egyptian obelisks around), the same sort of superstitious nonsense which led to the extinction of the people of Easter Island, I could see, even at the time of the Crusades, a basic understanding that this sort of behavior, or even at least some aspects of the philosophy behind it, is simply unsustainable.

So now, let's sum up. We have, in our midst, people who believe in a conspiracy hypothesis but have no evidence, demanding justice for crimes while having a lower standard of evidence than the criminal justice system they so vocally oppose. Either that, or they believe in a deep conspiracy, which somehow involves Freemasonry, and yet, from what I've described, any evidence for what Freemasonry actually is declares that such a theory is unacceptable. Which means that not only are these theories in no way about Freemasonry, but they also do not even reflect any evils which are fundamental to Freemasonry (at least, according to the evidence). As stated, Craft Masonry does in fact involve conspiracy in a deep way. But, ironically, anyone who adopts a conspiracy theory is expressing their own belief in the part of Masonic morality which is fundamentally reprehensible. Which implies that the conspiracy theorists are themselves THE Masonic conspiracy. This is why it's so important, I think, to make the right distinctions, even the subtle ones, as often as you are able. Otherwise, frankly, whatever the problem is, your ideas are not the solution.

As for my motivation: it's really quite simple. I have Freemasons in my family, as well as occultists. And I support the Occupy movement, as well as Tibetan Buddhism. I also (I think) have at least some understanding of Freemasonry—at least the general ideas. I therefore get a little perturbed when I see anti-Masonic sentiment within those movements and spiritual philosophies (i.e. Occupy, anti-psychiatry, and Tibetan Buddhism) I support. I am not a Freemason myself, so I honestly see no pressing need to defend Freemasonry (other than in a modest defense of my family). More pressing, however, is the need to defend the social movements I believe in from idiocy. Particularly, I'd like to avoid the people wherever they may be who claim to defend Mother Earth but do nothing to defend the people who may actually defend Mother Earth, who believe in doing occult magic but hate the people who probably do magic (and the ones who certainly do magic), and who profess a belief in a Supreme Being but reject every single philosophy and religion in the history of mankind who actually professes a monotheistic belief. I find this kind of mindset a little annoying.

The Problem with Psychiatry in Three Quick Arguments

I've composed an open letter to psychiatrists which sums up, in three linear, deductively valid, logical arguments exactly what is wrong with psychiatry. Previously I was wondering how deep the rabbit hole goes; this is precisely how deep it goes. I'm mailing this to psychiatrists, and I want a response. I think I deserve one, and I hope others, especially those directly harmed by psychiatry, can see why.

The Insanity Machine

I want to give a little more time to the idea of God and why it's so problematic. I seem to be noticing a rift between American atheists and Muslim Arabs. Both groups are generally really good people. They are polite, friendly, and try to get along with everyone. But they just seem to talk past each other on the topic of religion. And more importantly to the topic at hand, the way in which they talk past one another illustrates an important point about religion.

I need a little more experience with Muslim communities. But every time I interact with Muslims I tend to think that they are baffled by atheists. They just can't comprehend the idea of someone not loving God. They don't see why someone would reject God out of hand, for no obvious reason. So they revert to their own cultural beliefs and come to what I believe is a defensive conclusion drawn out of sheer bewilderment—American culture is anti-God.

Atheists, for their part, simply can't understand why anyone would adopt what appears to be an insane idea without any evidence. Which is really a perfectly reasonable conclusion in most philosophical categories. They don't understand why any Muslim would declare belief in a God they can't see and who obviously (to them) does little to help anyone. It's like believing in an imaginary friend who tells you to kill people, they think.

Is this really a clash of cultures? I believe not. I think it's two groups of people talking past one another because they simply don't have enough information about the other group. There are critical pieces of information missing.

Here is one critical piece of information which, from what I tentatively experience, is really unique to the West, and particularly America. It's what I call the Insanity Machine, and it is associated with religion.

Here's how it works. The Insanity Machine declares a philosophical proposition to be ultimately, fundamentally true or false, and no argument for or against the conclusion is allowed. Every attempt to argue against the conclusion is met by absurdities in defense of the Machine. But here's the kicker: these absurdities all appeal to existential crisis, which is common to all human beings, and cannot be successfully repudiated without appeal to another philosophical proposition that is ultimately, fundamentally true or false. The Insanity Machine then uses the concept of infinite punishment in hell to declare that it's proposition is essentially correct, and appeals to your fear of this hell to bully you into dropping your conclusion, whatever it may be, and settling for it's own.

Allow me to illustrate.

Human: "I am so happy to read that the Bible promotes love for all human beings. We should all be loving to one another."

Insanity Machine: "Bullshit. You have to hate Black people and Muslims or you're going to hell."

Human: "How can you say that?"

Insanity Machine: "Hate is actually love. God is love, and God hates people, so you have to hate people or you're going to hell."

Human: "Hate can't be love. That doesn't make any sense."

Insanity Machine: "It doesn't make sense because a demon is bewildering you. God has preordained who is going to heaven and hell for all eternity and nothing you do can change the fact that you're going to hell, unless you come to the conclusion that you accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior."

Human: "Why would God do something like that?"

Insanity Machine: "You can't argue with God. Everything I say has the authority of God and everything you say is from the devil. So adopt what I say or go to hell."

Human: "Jeez, what if a demon is bewildering me? How would I know?"

Insanity Machine: "You know because I'm telling you and I have authority. Believe me or go to hell."

Human: "Where do you get your authority?"

Insanity Machine: "From God."

Human: "How do I know it's the right God?"

Insanity Machine: "Because God says so, and if you don't believe in God you're going to hell for all eternity and you have no hope for anything. It doesn't matter if you know it's the right God because God has preordained that you will go to heaven or hell whether you know or not. Therefore you'd better know, or else you'll suffer in infinite burning pain for all eternity roasting and frying away in writhing agony forever."

Human: "What if this insanity machine is right? How would I know? I don't want to go to hell! What can I do? What on earth is the solution?"

Insanity Machine: "Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?"

Human: "Well I think so but..."

Insanity Machine: "Shut up, fucktard, you haven't accepted anything because you disagree with me. Now accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior RIGHT NOW or I will PERSONALLY see to it that you roast and boil for ever and ever and your seething skin will flake and peel off and you will try to cry out in pain but you'll be in infinite darkness and you'll never be heard and every nightmare will come true and your eyeballs will boil and infinite pain forever."

Human: "Oh God! What do I do!"

Insanity Machine: "You worthless scum, I just told you what to do. Now do it. Do it, or else."

Human: "Christ! I accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior! Please save me from hell! Please help me! I can't breathe I'm so frightened!"

Is it just me, or does this look an awful lot like a confession obtained under duress? The human being, of course, then goes on to use every excuse to proselytize and preach hatred and intolerance for the rest of his life, causing endless varieties of pain and suffering, and feeding into a cycle of fear which makes seeing the world correctly near impossible.

Now maybe I'm just ignorant. But I have never seen a Muslim bear any hint of an idea like the Insanity Machine. But in America, we see it all the time. Literally everywhere. It pervades our entire culture. It is by far the most insidious demon I've ever seen, and you only see it in Christianity. And if I'm right, and no Muslim has ever really looked this demon squarely in the face, it goes a long way to explain the rift between atheists and Muslims.

See, atheists are actually very courageous. Atheists are more courageous than I am, because while I for whatever crazy reason can't seem to stop talking about God, atheists are psychologically able to dismiss this ridiculous and disgusting Insanity Machine as absurd and reject it. They go on to spread their beliefs against intolerance, fear, hatred, and the agony of the soul-rape that is the Insanity Machine by telling everyone to avoid God at all costs. Unfortunately, people who have never heard of the Machine simply don't understand.

Anyway, regardless of what culture you're from, I feel it is of utmost importance to state this concept, and name it. I've named it the Insanity Machine. Now, hopefully, anyone who recognizes it in a wild-eyed, crazy demon-possessed Christian can simply say, "Hey, that looks an awful lot like the Insanity Machine to me. Care for a Xanax?"

Why People Give Up on God

I will never give up on a good idea.

When humanity discovered the philosophical notion of God and monotheism, it was an intellectually superior idea. Monotheism is far more coherent and powerful than divine polytheism. The idea that there are multiple Gods who rule the universe, and who have distinctive personalities like Zeus, and can control us with their mind-powers, just doesn't make sense. Whereas, the idea that beneficial and spiritual things are faceless and nameless and full of love makes a lot of sense. Nevertheless, the question arises:

Is God a good idea?

When I was in Nelson, British Columbia on retreat, I was painting a wall. I saw a bug flying around, attracted to the wall because it was white. The wall wasn't dry yet, so I tried to whisk it away, but the bug was determined to land on that wall because it was so beautiful and white. It landed on the wall, and I had no choice but to kill it, because it got stuck in the paint.

The religious paint in Western society has not yet dried. While there are attractive things about religion, it sometimes does more psychic harm than good. I hope that when I talk about God, as I sometimes do, that I'm contributing to the positive work being done, and not causing people, including myself, to die stuck in the paint.

But look. At the end of the day, in America, God is a racist sexist old white guy in a flowey robe who lives in a cloud. So if you go around talking about God from a genuine, spiritual point of view, nobody's going to know what the hell you're talking about. And worse, they're going to think you're a jerk and avoid you. And not all of those people who avoid you are going to be bad people. So you have to ask yourself, do you really want to be avoided by good people and sought after by bad people? That's a very important question.

Why did I ever get on a religious kick in the first place? When I was young, I used to trash-talk God. And it harmed people. So one day I decided the only solution was to ask God for forgiveness. This and this were the results, and I'm proud of them. Nevertheless, to say you're a religious person carries so much baggage. Too much. What do I mean when I say I "want" to be religious? It means I don't want to be a psychiatrist. And that's ALL it means. Nothing more. I want to have delusions, because only delusions allow you to believe in things that aren't real yet. It doesn't mean I want to go to church, and it doesn't mean I want to preach nonsense I try to make myself believe.

And anyway, the first thing that comes to mind when you mention God is bullshit. Because it is bullshit. And hypocritical. People go around saying God is loving, teaches you faith, has no image, is divine, will lead you to heaven, and so on, but they always seem to conjure up the image of a hateful, superstition-inducing, commercially whored, frightening concept that causes everybody to suffer. Why should I go around wearing that as a badge of honor? I think it's telling that the most positive changes brought about in society today were made by anti-Christians, many of whom were probably pseudo-Satanists. I'm not joking. Look it up.

There's a reason why we have religion, but there's also a reason why people seem to hate it. There's a reason for everything. And it's not because people are sin-loving devil worshipers who've lost their soul. I think religious people sell their soul more often than atheists, with a few laudable exceptions. (Some of whom I'm proud to say are my friends.) But if you love God, please, don't be a jerk. By their fruits ye shall know them, and frankly, the fruits of religion smell pretty sour. Hopefully it's only because they're not ripe yet.

On Divine Inspiration

I think the argument that religion is bad for humanity, put forth by Christopher Hitchens and others, is faulty. Religion is of positive benefit to us all.

Of course, there's a good instinct behind the blame of religion for world problems. Peoples of the world use religion to harm others. They say that because God spoke to them, they have the right to kill others. Christopher Hitchens said that such a belief is essentially totalitarian. It puts ultimate truth in a single person, or a single book, at the exclusion of others. But I say this is nonsense.

To understand why this is nonsense, we should unpack the ideas at play here. One is of an ultimate power, or God. There is also the idea that this ultimate power can inspire others disproportionately. Then, there is the idea that this ultimate power having given divine charter to individuals over others leads to violence.

It is at this last point where the idea fails.

Think about it. This is not an argument against religion; it's an argument against power. It is the divine charter itself that people have a problem with, not the fact that it is divine. And I say this is wrongheaded. People need power. Power is part of what makes us who we are.

I think this is the time to lay down some working definitions. When I'm talking about "divine inspiration," I'm talking about the product of religion. Many religious texts claim divine inspiration. They say, essentially, that this particular text came from God and has the authority of God in a sense. There are also many people in the world who claim to be divinely inspired, and claim the authority of God in a sense. What they are saying is that God has transferred some of His power to them. What I'm saying is that, contrary to many people's belief, this idea of having been divinely inspired is not at fault when these people choose to behave negatively. It's like having a car. Having a car gives you a great deal of power, and enables you to do things you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. However, of course, you may choose to drive drunk, and as a result, kill people. You wouldn't be able to kill people if you were just walking around drunk. Having the car gives you the ability to choose foolish actions which harm others. But I don't think that's an argument against cars. It's an argument against stupid decisions. Same goes for religion.

Suppose anti-religious people had their way, and God never divinely inspired anyone. There would be no change in human nature. Individuals or groups claiming inspiration leading to a better world would have no ability to garner public support and effect change, because, by definition, they would have nothing these other people didn't have. On the positive side, you'd never have people resorting to heavy-handed or desperate tactics in the name of this inspiration. But I'd rather humanity at least have the choice to effect change, even if the choice can be corrupted.

And that is the essence of my argument in support of religion. People who are inspired by God have a choice to behave positively or negatively. If there were no divine inspiration, there'd be no choice. And nothing would ever change, for good or bad. The fact that a huge number of people choose to use their inspiration as reasons to behave badly reflects badly on us, but not on religion.