Endorsing Civil Disobedience

I would endorse civil disobedience when "an unjust law is no law at all." There

are always exceptions to obeying laws when the laws put into place are immoral
such as laws allowing discrimination, segregation, or genocide. Martin Luther
King, in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail,  recalled St. Thomas Aquinas'
thoughts on civil disobedience by saying, " Any law that uplifts human

personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." I think

this could not have a better choice of words. He also gave a perfect analogy to
support civil disobedience by reminding the clergymen that Adolf Hitler's
actions in Germany were considered "legal." This is a perfect example of what
could happen in a society today if citizens are not allowed to challenge immoral
laws. Even Gandhi, who was a supporter of nonviolence, agreed that in certain
circumstances, violence is the only thing that will stop immoral or unjust laws. 
Socrates did not endorse civil disobedience and even refused to allow his followers 
to help him escape prison. Years later, as we learn and reflect that his philosophical 
teachings were in fact an act of civil disobedience that he used to question the 
unjust laws of Athens. 
Then we are always left with the problem of deciding what is considered "immoral?" I think if we follow St. Thomas Aquinas quote, " Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." We can use this standard when confronting our modern day issues such as legalizing gay marriage, health care reform, mortgage fraud and more. 

Government Intervention, When is it okay?

John Stuart Mill is a classical liberal philosopher who argues that the government should only intervene when there is clear and present danger to someone other than one’s self. He does not believe in paternalistic laws such as refusing to wear a seat belt or a helmet. Then, we have Karl Marx who is in agreement with government intervention to ensure a safe society. I am in agreement with a little of both.

I believe that the government should not be able to control personal decisions such as wearing your seat belt and a helmet, a women’s right to choose, the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. However, I also realize that there are circumstances that arise that challenge these issues such as when one’s behaviors begin to destroy or harm their families or other parts of society. This when I begin to agree with Marx. The government needs to intervene to ensure the safety of society as a whole. The problem is that there is a fine line defining what is individual and personal and what is considered to be for the greater good. It is a fact that an outside source, such as a government, will never be able to control what one deems right due to their individual circumstance. I feel our country is still doing its best to figure this out, but still has proven to have a long way to go. Capitalism works when we have checks and balances or in other words when we have real statesmen working to enforce reasonable laws. Unfortunately, the majority of the people making the laws are playing a partisan rewards game and the real significance gets lost. Another thought is that it would be nice if  the people the government is actually helping only amounts to 20% of the population that truthfully can't take care of themselves, rather than including the percentile who work hard and make bad decisions or choose not to work at all with the expectation that the government will help them out. Then, we are left with the percentage of people who work hard and make good decisions and of course the 1% of people who own and control the economy, take more than their share and take advantage of society. When is it that an individual, a company or a big bank has to own up and pay for its failures and at what point was it that everyone became so concerned about themselves they lost sight of the bigger picture? I don't think that any of what I just described is what Karl Marks or John Stuart Mill were condoning and therefore I think the answer to government intervention may lie somewhere in between.

Buddhism and the reality for the Contemporary United States

 I consulted with a Buddhist monk in regards to the following question that was asked in my Philosophy course. " Is there a conflict between what buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society?" My answer is yes. I based my conclusion on several findings which included consulting with a buddhist monk what his thoughts were, the information obtained in my philosophy class and my zazen practice. I also am highly influenced by my personal observation of my own spiritual growth. Sitting Zazen for long periods of time at a Buddhist monastery such as Dai Bo Satsu Zendo, in up state NY was certainly not what I had in mind when dreaming up my life as a small town Catholic girl. I now consider myself Agnostic, Buddhist and on a constant spiritual journey. To some this may seem to be a paradox, but I believe that this is my dharma whether I like it or not. Now, getting back to the question is there a conflict of what buddhism teaches and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? Yes, there is a conflict. For one, I believe there is no individuality. The condition of our surroundings directly reflects the condition of our minds as one. For example, the 1% issue in the U.S. Although I am not big on protesting, I believe there is a lot of truth to this issue. We have those who are taking more than there share, over consuming, over spending and not seeing the big picture. This behavior affects the other 99% and leaves some scrounging to find ways of taking care of their basic needs. Now, within this 99% there are some of us who still take more than our share, forget to consider the bigger picture, get angry and bitter, refuse to work or pay taxes, which still does not add to a productive society as a whole, but adds to the HOLE or the GAP. I think the United States consciousness is filled with this kind of ego. Ego loves drama which loves to gossip, spend money, flash expensive things and compete. If you watch just five minutes of commercials you may be shocked that the over all message is telling you to be the best, or proving how they are the best which in one mind contributes to our collective consciousness and what it is focused on.
The Buddhist monk that I spoke with stated that the above question seems to stand outside of practice. What he means is the practice of Zazen. The practice of our individual reflection and realization of our part that contributes to the universe as a whole "without diversion."
Through my practice of zazen I found or continue to find my true spirituality and my experience of GOD if there is one or not. To me, this is what GOD is and it this way of being that is contradictory to the condition of  the contemporary United States.