SHOUTING FIRE vs iGONGYO

The most stringent protection
of free speech
would not protect a man
in falsely shouting fire in a theatre
and causing a panic.

Oliver Wendell Holmes
Schenck v United States
March 3, 1919

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I was watching the NBA playoffs on network TV and the camera was focused close up on the Celtic bench when they went up in points for what turned out to be a winning lead. A time out was called and the network was about to break away for a commercial while the Celtic bench of players rose to their feet to greet the players on court. The camera shot stayed down low so I really didn’t see who said it, but I heard as clear as day the greeting of “MY NIGGER!”

Lenny Bruce, in referring to all ethnic slurs, joked that we should use them until they lost their meaning. Then he would go on a tirade and say the word “nigger” twenty times. Indeed, it seems that he was right in a sense because Black Americans have recaptured the word “nigger” for their “soul” use. Someone should have told Michael Richards. After his unfortunate lapse of common sense, comedian Paul Rodriguez was interviewed because he happened to be there and he said, and I am paraphrasing, that “you shouldn’t use the “N” word unless you’re…” he paused. You could tell he had to catch himself. He almost said “unless you’re one.” Which actually would have been funny. That’s the way a comedian’s mind works. But he didn’t and instead he said, “…of that persuasion.”

Down in San Diego County a Poway High School student wore in protest against the gay students in school who had organized against homophobia, a tee shirt that read on the front “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned” and on the back, “Homosexuality Is Shameful”. He was sequestered for the day in the principal’s office to keep him safe because of the inflammatory nature of the statement. It’s the same reasoning for why you can’t falsely shout, “FIRE!” in a public building: public safety. A court ruled that he could not wear it to school based on the 1919 interpretation. A later court overturned the ruling because his lawyer also invoked the 1st Amendment but used freedom of religious expression. Good ole Liviticus. I can’t, or should not, wear a tee shirt that says “Don’t Used The Word Nigger” on the front and “Unless You’re One” on the back legally in a public place because of the inflammatory nature (and common sense if I want to make it home in one piece). But technically, I can wear one that says “Stone The Adulteress To Her Death” because it is in the Bible, or “Kill The Infidels Wherever You Find Them” from the Qur’an. I think I’ll get one each of those tee shirts and wear them around the house just for fun.

With all of the previous as food for thought, I’m going to address only one of the questions in the last blog:

Why, according to some, one should not take a picture of a Nichiren Gohonzon and if you do even by accident, you should destroy it. This must be problematic now for the SGI with the addition of the new iPhone app iGongyo, which comes with a written liturgy you can read, an audible recitation of the liturgy you can recite along with, a recitation of the Diamoku which you can chant along with, and a picture of the same Gohonzon issued by the SGI that, if you want to and if you don’t see an ethical difference between a computer generated pixel image and an image reproduced by a different computer which is then mass printed on paper, you can chant to. All that for only 99 cents. Interestingly, the gongyo ends with NAMU, which the SGI doesn’t do any longer so I’m guessing it’s from a Nichiren Shoshu gathering, in an ironic ecumenical blending of formats  and someone’s marketing idea.

I know several people in who work for the SGI publications including the former chief editor. I consider them friends even though we disagree on, well, we disagree on a great many things. I’m fairly sure they have an IKEDA ALARM when anything about Ikeda is written. Barbara of Barbara’s Buddhism Blog was writing about the incongruity of including Ikeda into the Gandhi/King exhibit

Gandhi, King, and … Ikeda?

(the reason being that two have been recognized independently by the world at large as changing a world view in society and martyred for their efforts, while the other simply has not) when heavy weight apologists for the SGI, Ian McIlriath and Bill Aiken, actually responded in print on her blog. I wrote about Ikeda and received an email from one of the principle writers from the publications. (They have only contacted me in critical defense of something I’ve written but never when I have written something positive: negative reinforcement.) This is what they wrote to me in private, and I will respect their anonymity as requested:

“As far as the Gohozon policy goes:
The SGI has policies and beliefs regarding the Gohonzon. Among those are policies related to the reproduction of the Gohonzon image. We don’t claim any legal justification for opposing downloading Gohonzon from the Internet or photographing it. The SGI position is based on our understanding of the attitude expressed by Nichiren himself to not treat the Gohonzon lightly. To treat it with utmost respect—to treasure it.
People who have no knowledge of the Gohonzon’s origin or meaning may download it, but it doesn’t mean they will receive benefit. Benefit is the result of faith in the Gohonzon, not possession of it. Faith is something one learns through practice with a good teacher and a community of believers who share the vow to fulfillthe Buddha’s mandate—kosen-rufu. We consider the image of the Gohonzon, as the true object of devotion, to be sacred or holy and feel that its reproduction should be done with the purest of intent and under the auspices of those who practice as the Daishonin intended. It is offensive to those of us who have faith in the Gohonzon to see its image reproduced haphazardly or frivolously. It is just good taste or bad taste. If people don’t believe in it or respect it, we simple ask that they at least respect our beliefs.

Nichiren was very strict in even allowing the Gohonzon to be shown to non-believers: “Faith like yours is so extremely rare that I will inscribe the treasure tower especially for you. You must never transfer it to anyone but your son. You must never show it to others unless they have steadfast faith. This is the reason for my advent in this world.” (On theTreasure Tower, p. 300, 1272)

The Gohonzon was inscribed for the sake of the widespread propagation of the Law—kosen-rufu. In “The Real Aspect of the Gohonzon,”Nichiren Daishonin thus states, “How wondrous it is that, around two hundred years and more into the Latter Day of the Law, I was the first to reveal as the banner of propagation of the Lotus Sutra this great mandala that even those such as Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu, T’ien-t’ai and Miao-lo were unable to express.” (WND, 831)

One of the functions of the Buddhist community to ensure the correct transmission of the teachings. This also applies to the responsibility to confer the Gohonzon. As the community of believers in the Daishonin’s Buddhism that has consistently demonstrated proof of the Gohonzon’s significance and propagated it widely, the SGI has assumed that responsibility.”

Okay, there is a lot here to discuss because mixed in with what seems reasonable and common sense are unreasonable and arbitrary assertions. But I’ll just touch a couple of points:
1. Quoting Nichiren in defense of your point is problematic because it’s already translated from antiquity and one needs to take into account whom he’s writing to and why as much as to what he wrote. Most of Nichiren’s letters are extremely subjective and personable. Taking everything as a literal blanket to be thrown over what someone wants it to mean is oblique.
2. Why do I need to respect someone’s beliefs just because they believe I should? Sorry, respecting beliefs because they are beliefs is syllogistic. You need to earn my respect and the best way to do that is common sense and logic.
3. The words “Holy” and “Sacred” go along with “Sacrosanct” and “Infallible” and that’s exactly what the Vatican and the Islamic nations invoke constantly in defense of their beliefs that fly in the face of modernity.

One comment said that the photographing of the Gohonzon reminded them of the controversy surrounding  the published pictures of Mohammed. I could not agree more. Here is another article I wrote on…

BLASPHEMY

The idea of a United Nations or a United Nations Council on Human Rights has always struck me as filled with potential even if merely as an arena for dialogue. But dialogue seems rather a paper tiger when faced with actual genocidal mass murder or sociologically sanctioned bludgeoning of it’s own strata.

The only condemnations of recent history I have discovered have been against Israel and the ones against Iran have been blocked by China, which has an oil deal with them. (If anyone has more info about what is being done, please feel free. I had a hard time finding out much.) Recently I was listening to a podcast called Reasonable Doubts with a guest speaker Austin Dacey
http://www.austindacey.com/abo…
who is a NGO representative to the UN for the Center for Inquiry.
He was taking about the USA’s reengaging to the revamped UN Council on Human Rights

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

and that the UN passed a resolution that went virtually unreported. It was proposed by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, OIC, which consists of about 50 or so Islamic nations:

http://www.oicun.org/oic_at_un…

where they put into effect, and again it was passed by the UN, which
condemns the “defamation of religion” as a “violation of human rights”.
The older term for this is “blasphemy”. In the Constitution of the United States of America, we have the right to be blasphemous because of the 1st amendment. The resolution by the OIC, which some of its constituency is guilty of human rights violations decried by individual nations but could not be passed by the UN because they themselves can vote to block the action, came after the maelstrom of controversy surrounding Danish cartoons depicting the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Of course the argument of what constitutes freedom of speech can only be argued when you have the freedom to talk about it. The UN resolution leaves the power to define the “defamation” to those who take umbrage. This resolution by the UN making religion a sacrosanct topic has kept many nations from joining the Council on Human Rights because it has further hobbled what is looked upon by many as an already powerless body to take any positive action in rectifying miscarriages to human rights.
This whole thing led me to an interesting discovery; The Institution for the Secularization of Islamic Society. 
You can read their charter here:

http://www.centerforinquiry.ne…

which is now condemnable for blasphemy by the UN!