Daniel Larison tells us that there is a difference between fundamentalism and cultural conservatism. While I think he offers an interesting position, I’d also suggest that his working definition of fundamentalism is off.

He says:

The key characteristic of a genuinely fundamentalist mentality is its hostility to complexity, historical context and the possibility of a text being multivalent; fundamentalists are to some extent the terrible simplifiers of rich dogmatic traditions.

The key characteristic of a fundamentalist mentality, as well as that of most cultural conservatives that I know, is one of attachment. Fundamentalists may be hostile to complexity as well as any number of other things, but this hostility is rooted in fear. And fear results when any of us anticipates the loss of something to which we cling.

Surrendering those things to which we attach is the Liberation that Buddha, Christ, and the rest of the prophets, have spoken about so beautifully.

At least this is the story I’m clinging to.

via Conservatives, Cultural and Religious.

If you’ve got the time, Corey DeVos and Clint Fuhs did a great job on analyzing various parts of the ’08 campaign from an Integral perspective.

Check ‘em out.

Bows, Corey DeVos & Clint Fuhs at Integral Life.

Here’s part of what Ken Wilber thinks of Obama:

It is, of course, still too soon to make a solid judgment about this, but it seems safe to say that Barack Obama is likely moving into truly Integral waves of development and therefore beginning to evidence truly Integral values and positions. Combined with his already significantly developed states (which gives the very notable Radiance and Presence to his being), this means we might very well be seeing, certainly for the first time in this century, a truly Integrally-oriented President of the United States.

via kenwilber.com.

Advertised as “An Online Resource for Buddhists Associated with the United States Armed Forces.”

Welcome to the Buddhist Military Sangha! This is a nonpolitical and nonsectarian forum for Buddhists serving in the US Armed Forces.

Interesting.

via Buddhist Military Sangha.

The WaPo has an interesting article about religiosity and the game:

…the depth of convictions from evangelical Cardinals quarterback Kurt Warner to the Steelers who will do their best to plant him face-first into the ground on Sunday has put religion squarely in play this week.

And we’ll hope that we can take Roderick Hood at his word when he says:

… he prays before every game, after every game and during the game itself. Lest Pittsburgh fans get the wrong idea, though, he says he prays for everyone to be safe and not for any particular team to win.

I’m no expert, but doesn’t God have more pressing matters on his plate? Don’t get me wrong, I love competitive sports; not only as a participant but also as a spectator. It’s just that seeing acknowledging fingers pointing to the sky after great plays, prayer circles before and after games, and kneelings after scores always makes me smile. It’s as if there is some negotiation between player(s) and God from an inherent separation.

I’m waiting to see a Buddhist player suddenly wrap himself into full-lotus after blasting through the defense into the endzone, watching his breath, wishing happiness upon all beings.

via Faith mixes with football for the big game – washingtonpost.com.

Wow.

I know what you’re thinking: this is all fun and games until somebody loses an eye.

Shooting on the Chinese-language film 3D Sex And Zen, budgeted at 4 million US dollars, is scheduled for April with producers promising some of the most realistic close-up sex scenes ever.

Yeah, so be careful.

“Just imagine that you’ll be watching it as if you were sitting beside the bed,” Stephen Shiu Jnr told the Sunday Morning Post.

“There will be many close-ups. It will look as if the actresses are only a few centimetres from the audience.”

via LIVENEWS.com.au.

Bows, Tricycle.

Finally, a vegetarian haggis recipe just like my Uncle Angus used to make:

The other night I made a vegetarian version of the traditional Scottish dish, haggis, of which Wikipedia has the following to say:

There are many recipes, most of which have in common the following ingredients: sheep’s ‘pluck’ heart, liver and lungs, minced with onion, oatmeal, suet, spices, and salt, mixed with stock, and traditionally boiled in the animal’s stomach for approximately three hours.

Nice one.

Bows, Bodhi Tree Swaying.

Over at Wildmind, Sunada talks of her interpretation of attachment in relation to love:

let’s clarify what the Buddha said about sexual relationships. He said that a man and a woman in a loving, supportive relationship are like a pairing of a god and a goddess. Hardly sounds like disapproval, does it? It turns out the Buddha was all for people committing to relationships and enjoying them to their full extent. In fact, he saw all human relationships as wonderful opportunities to practice loving-kindness, generosity, and mutual support. A long-term committed one was all the more an opportunity to go deeper in one’s understanding and cultivation of these qualities.

First off, if we take the Buddha at his word, which we should be careful about since we don’t know what he said, homosexuality is left out of the mix. This is interesting to me. What  would Buddha do if he were asked to preside over a commitment ceremony shared by same sex adults?

My guess, and that’s all it is, would be that the Buddha wouldn’t attach to anything, neither would he avoid anything. Thus a contextually appropriate response would be offered. This is what Yunmen thinks enlightenment is: an appropriate response.

With this said, love seems to come in two forms. One us open, broad, and boundless. The other is an egoic negotiation. The former is the result of allowing our relationships to inform our practice, with the latter being a source of suffering.

via Love, sex, and non-attachment | Wildmind Buddhist Meditation.