Arizona Bans Karma--Seriously.

Since the dark days of the attacks on America by radical, Islamic terrorists on September 11th 2001, there has been a growing intolerance here for non-Judeo-Christian religions. This has, unfortunately, been mostly aimed at the American-Muslim community in a misguided attempt to combat radical Islam.

Unfortunately, there are numerous people in America who can't seem to make a distinction between an Islamic terrorist and an Islamic moderate practicing their religion freely as allowed under the American Constitution. But I digress. One of the targets of the this fear of anything Islamic has come in the form of a wide-spread paranoia of Sharia law.

In brief, Sharia law is law based on the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an (koran). The Islamophobia is so rampant in America these days that states have taken to banning Sharia law in a preemptive move to prevent such law from taking root. This is occurring despite no movement to impose or establish Sharia law in America. The silliness of it all is that such moves by these states are a waste of time since the American Constitution supersedes any other form of law within America!!

But the politicians of Arizona didn't stop there. They wanted to make sure ALL non-Christian religious beliefs would have no influence in Arizona state law. This included banning karma, which I didn't even know was possible considering karma is basically the idea of, "cause and effect" or causality. So, in one sense, by banning karma, these politicians are essentially trying to ban the scientific law of cause and effect. They seriously banned karma within the state of Arizona, which for a Buddhist is all rather odd considering karma isn't really a form of law to base a government around, but rather a natural consequence of our actions. I'm not angry or offended by their attempt to ban karma but I am certainly amused by it all!! It makes me laugh because banning karma is like banning gravity.

However, what I do take seriously is the generalized intolerance of anything that's not Christian or of Anglo-Saxon cultural origin. The last thing we need in this already complicated world of suffering is additional reasons to divide ourselves and fuel hatred. It truly makes my heart ache to see such narrow-minded thinking in my country, which has often been the example of tolerance in the world.

~Peace to all beings~

Assault Weapons, Violence and Anger.

(Above: Glock handgun with an extended magazine of bullets)

Why does anyone need an assault weapon except to kill people? True, it can be used at a gun range but the potential for misuse by an unstable person is too high. We need to re-ban assault weapons. They aren't needed or wanted when hunting. I'm all for protecting the 2nd amendment but believe that sensible restrictions should be in place too.

The shooter in AZ who killed or wounded a dozen people, including a duly elected Congresswoman, had an extended clip to his pistol, which means he had 30 bullets per clip!! That means he transformed a regular pistol into an assault weapon. Such a clip was banned under the assault weapons ban in America until 2004. It could have prevented this shooter from having 30 bullets, which would have greatly limited the damage. He was only tackled after he ran out of bullets. That would have been sooner had he only had a regular clip. I'm I'll for the right to have weapons and the right to hunt but I don't believe I'm a "radical" for wanting sensible restrictions.

Can assault weapons and extended clips still be found and/or bought? Yes, but it would make it harder and any thing we can do to make it harder will help reduce violence; not end it because that's nearly impossible but reduce it. It would also lower the lethality of an attack. Will it solve the problem completely? No, but we must do something to help curb the lethality of these attacks. In addition, we need to do better about screening people who shouldn't be allowed to carry weapons such as the mentally ill; for their own safety too due to high suicide rates. It's harder to get into college than it is to get a gun in some places!!

I don't think it's infringing upon anyone's right to bear arms to have sensible restrictions on a device that has the potential to kill mass people. Where do gun advocates suggest we draw the line? We don't allow people to have tanks or fighter jets that cause mass destruction but assault weapons of mass destruction are o.k.??? I don't want to ban your hunting rifle, your shotgun or your pistol, so don't accuse me of being anti-gun. I have many family members who own and enjoy guns--that's not my problem. I just want to make it harder for the unstable to get these kind of mass lethality causing weapons.

As a Buddhist who abhors violence, I struggle with how extensive gun laws should be. There is already enough violence and weapons on this planet to kill and evaporate every last man, woman and child. So, allowing people to own weapons and clips of bullets that add to that potential for mass death seems ludicrous. At the same time, it's important not to attach onto anger toward those who support the use of such weapons; anger never solves anything. If anything, it makes differences harder to reconcile.

The advisement from Buddha to avoid violence must extend to our speech but too often we (myself included) allow ourselves to wield angry words toward one another. In physical violence the person dies and thus the violence upon them is short but with angry words the violence upon them lasts sometimes for years. This is not to say physical violence is any less damaging but rather to show how angry words can do nearly as much damage to individuals. I struggle with anger and all too often succumb to it's primitive instinct but I will never give up in working to reduce and eliminate angry words. That doesn't mean we always have to agree with one another but we can disagree without being angry and disagreeable.

~Peace to all beings~

Obama & Immigration

The Economist's Lexington article this week criticises Obama over his inaction on the issue of immigration and his alienation of key Republican figures who might help him achieve immigration reform. What do you think?

Chicago and Arizona

Chicago City Council in a 45-0 vote approved a new gun ordinance after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the city's 28-year-old strict ban on handgun ownership was unconstitutional. At the end of June the Supreme Court ruling overturned the city's previous handgun ban. Although it was expected, the decision confirms the conservative view of the court on gun issues. Two years ago a similar decision was taken regarding Washington DC's gun laws despite this interfering with states' rights. Chicago has particular reason for concern on the issue as last month 164 people were murdered in the city, mainly by a gun. Here is the CNN report.
Meanwhile on another contentious issue... the US Government is taking Arizona to court to try to stop its controversial laws on illegal immigration. It is believed that its powers to stop and ask for identification will lead to racial profiling on a large scale as there is a large Hispanic community in the state. Mark Mardell sums it up well.
What is your view on these issues? Liberal Europeans misunderstanding America's priorities or American exceptionalism of the worst kind?