Respectfully, I not only disagree with his
understanding of the facts, but I have to take offense to these notions. First,
regarding atheism, the lack of belief in a “higher” power in no way
suggests a focus on the self. In fact, it doesn’t suggest much of anything
expect for the fact that one does not subscribe to any theism (per
Merriam-Webster, “belief in the existence of one God viewed as the
creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent
in the world.”) “It” (atheism) is not a philosophy, but rather
the rejection of one, hence the “a” in atheistic. Assigning
particulars beyond that non-belief, in essence turning atheism into a creed, is
erroneous. I know it’s hard for “believers” to understand this, as the
tendency is to see atheism (note the lowercase) as yet another piece on
the religion game board. But the fact is that we’re simply not
playing in that arena. The extent to which one wishes to point out that some of us might have shared attitudes
about life or community will require much more thoughtful and specific uses
of “ism.”

Second, regarding Buddhism, the Reverend seems to be unaware
of (at least) two key Buddhist concepts that are shared in traditional and
non-traditional practices alike. First, not only are we not focused on self,
we believe in a core idea of “non-self.” The Buddha taught that the ego
and the arrangement of the present gives one the illusion of a permanent self,
which can cause great suffering. We seek to be aware of these illusions and
draw from that awareness a true sense of oneness with our world. Moreover, we
specifically take “refuge” in our Sangha – our community – however
that might be interpreted by various Buddhist practitioners. I would ask the
Reverend to note the widespread societal participation of Buddhists around the world.
From Burma to Tibet to right here in the United States, thousands – indeed
millions – of Buddhists are actively engaged not only in their Sanghas, but with
changing the world and making it better place for all. This, and our concepts
of metta (loving kindness) and empathy, are deeply rooted in this notion
of non-self. With all due respect, the Reverend’s comments
represent the opposite of what it means to practice Buddhism.   

Finally, as for his idea of our seeking our own “satisfaction,” indeed, as humans we all tend to gravitate to that which pleases us, some of
which at least seems to make our journey more meaningful and pleasurable. Some
people turn to his religion (or any other) because of this. Some turn to
Buddhist teachings and philosophy. So he’s right to say that we seek
satisfaction in our practice. But does he not seek satisfaction from his?

The insinuation that a sense of community can only be felt
and articulated through the acceptance of a higher power, or that atheism
or Buddhism would preclude such and represents an “emphasis on the self,”
is simply inaccurate. 

As for Rabbi Pearce, I’m glad to know that he’s “not against
women” and thinks they’re “terrific.” I’ll leave that to someone else
to deconstruct.

Again, Luanne, super exposé! Thanks!