Be Discreet in Your Confessions (satire)

Regarding the confession of sins before the clergy by a church member, I find that what a person does in his or her home should not be aired in church, even when such a confession might be warranted in private.

This article is about confessions of sin in religion. If the gentle reader is not at all religious, then this article is still useful as a guide in being discreet when being candid with a trusted family member, friend and even a coworker or a work supervisor.


From what I have been able to understand, the clergy believes moral responsibility implies that they should pressure their members and their children to suppress natural human desires in order to enjoy a utopia in the afterlife. Additionally, some of them would pry into the privacy of one of their members, using the ruse that confession of sin is good for the soul while sometimes using the private information revealed to them unethically.

Personally, I feel that what people do in the privacy of their home is their responsibility. Airing one's dirty linens in a confessional risks the sinner being subject to invasion of privacy and needless shame. It also opens a whole ball of wax, because it's more socially acceptable to be sincere about keeping the faith than to be totally candid about personal privacy.

Indeed, a few unscrupulous clergy may have used their position of authority to make a vulnerable member compliant to what amounts to emotional blackmail, which is a violation of the sanctity of confession of sins.

It is truly unethical for the clergy to take advantage of a church member who is candid about his or her sins. Indeed, it is morally irresponsible for the clergy to force a member to do something against his or her will through the use of emotional blackmail to keep them quiet.

For this is devilish of clergy to behave in such a way, especially when it is excused by declaring that it is done for the member's own good i.e. ensuring one's destiny in the afterlife.

By exercising power and control over a church member in such a manner, the clergy certainly is not behaving ethically, regardless of any justification made.

So I would caution church members to be careful about what sins they confess before clergy. For personal privacy means that any member is free to maintain her privacy about personal questions that the church has no business asking.

Am I suggesting that a church member lie? No, if the questioning gets uncomfortable, then the church member should sincerely declare that she is not there to air her dirty linen without a supportive witness present.

It also is unethical for a witness for emotional support to side with the clergy should the member be candid about her sins. That witness' role is to provide emotional support, not gang up on the sinner.

Even so, it requires much prayer before being candid about one's sins. The clergy is actually practising a form of psychological abuse when demanding a full confession of sins with the threat that lack of candidness means a trip to Hell.

Indeed, warrantless emphasis on the destiny of the wicked as 'damned to Hell' without presenting the strong case of mercy by a loving God through repentance is itself a kind of sin that equally damns anyone else. For it is indeed devilish to needlessly frighten a church member into compliance.

This is why I would caution church members to be ever vigilant when in an interview with clergy or a member of high standing, so as to not complicate the confession process needlessly.

It is far better to confess privately to God your private sins, and pray for forgiveness than to confess about them with clergy, unless you trust them to keep your sins secret and to remain morally responsible in light of your confession of sins to them.

I am sure this is why we are selective about who we confess our errors to, lest the empaths try to shame us into repentance, which is different from freely repenting.

We are not perfect, being human. Yet there might be some unscrupulous person to abuse their moral responsibility by violating their sense of professionalism and turning sociopathic, if only to "teach us a lesson".

So be discreet about what you confess to a confident who you trust, and always be open to repentance.

I Love/Hate Monsanto

I have this love/hate sentiment about Monsanto.

First for buying the license for an Asian flavor, Aji-no-moto, from a Japanese corporation, and making it generic contrary to the licence, I hate Monsanto.

Second, for having the audacity of pretending to be user friendly, I hate Monsanto!

Thirdly, for never having a civil dialog with me about aspartame? I hate Monsanto!!

According to what I found out, Monsanto is actually a Hispanic surname.

It means "My saint" which implies to me, the angel/daemon that watches over each of us due to it being the unknown God's creation.

Basically Monsanto's purpose is to save us from starvation, whilst putting farmers it deems rogue out of business, just because they won't grow Monsanto food at a price.

For the oppression of farmers whose only crime is to grow non-GMO crops beside a Monsanto-sanctified farmer is the worst form of corporate fascism yet to befall mankind.

It even beats Microsoft lawyers suing people who have assets for not having a license for their Windows software.

IMO the solution to the Monsanto dilemma is for an itinerant farmer be allowed to grow a mix of Monsanto-sanctified seed with non-GMO seeds, but to save the Monsanto Round-up for when the former plants get sick with some weird fungus.

For example, GMO rye would be resistant to ergot as well as the herbicide.

Monsanto, you listening??

Satan and Man's Potential for Evil

"Satan is cool" — George Carlin

I wonder if George ever heard of the UK band, Satan. :p

No matter.

Since I'm Buddhist, I am open to the LaVey form of satanism, which is a symbolic interpretation.

Anything else which involves unnecessary violence and deluded people totally missing the point is diabolism.

Satan is cool but being a supernatural entity, he can only make suggestions about exploring the dark side of morality, and man's potential for evil.

Oh, and I don't worship satan. As a Buddhist, I view him as the monotheistic version of Mara, who represents human temptation.

As well, the Bahá'í view of satan is closest to my view:

"This lower nature in man is symbolized as Satan — the evil ego within us, not an evil personality outside." - Abdu'l-Bahá

In Buddhism, the demon Mara was conquered by the Buddha. Yet Buddhists view demons differently from the way they are in the West. Being nuisances, their purpose is to distract the Buddhist from practising the Dharma, the Buddha's teachings.

Likewise, I view satan as a pest rather than the actual embodiment of evil.

For evil is an impediment to Enlightenment when it leads to disrespect of the Buddha, his teachings, and fellow Buddhists.

Indeed, we all make choices, and the fruit of those choices ripen in our life. That fruit is called "karma". Choices which harm us are deemed "bad", "evil", or "negative", while choices which do not harm us are deemed "good" or "positive"; but choices which have no consequence are deemed "neutral".

To me, "Satan is cool" means "the potential for evil in human beings is fascinating". Yet such fascination would not lead me to worship satan.

Instead, my open-mindedness regarding Satan as the symbol of rebellion is tempered by my adherence to Buddhist ethics.

For I hold no belief of evil as a supernatural entity because it violates the Buddhist principle of non-self (anattā), the illusion of "self".

Belief in satan is to worship him. In not believing in satan, I show respect in Buddha's teaching that all things, including "self", are temporary.

Given that satan was invented by men as symbolic of the potential for evil in people, he has no existence in this world, for such inventions are temporary.

Still, the potential for evil in people is fascinating.

Karma is not the same as kismet

Speaking at the Cannes Film Festival last week to a Hong Kong TV channel, Stone, 50, said: “I’m not happy about the way the Chinese are treating the Tibetans because I don’t think anyone should be unkind to anyone else.

“And then this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and then I thought, is that karma? When you’re not nice bad things happen to you.”

Karma is not like that at all.

What Sharon Stone is referring to is what is commonly known to Muslims and Arabs as kismet, and what the West knows as predestination i.e that a previous sin will lead to a trial similar to what tested Job. It could also be seen as destiny, because that implies that one's choices influences one's destiny, and that one's bad decision leads to punishment by God.

Specifically regarding karma, it is NEUTRAL, but humans judge a particular situation as bad or good arbitrarily. However, each situation calls for a code of ethics to be followed according to the circumstances.

It only feels right to say wrong action in the past begets bad karma in the future. Why not just use the term "destiny"? Or "kismet?"

Anyone who views karma in terms of an absolute "one-size-fits-all" code of ethics is totally missing the point of Buddhism and Hinduism.

Karma actually works within the framework of situational ethics i.e. under these circumstances, these past actions end up in passing on karma by our actions which is like setting up a row of dominoes, die by die.

Just like dominoes falling, the mishandling of a situation may result in a future result as the karma of the previous action is passed on, but only man judges it to be good or bad, according to his whims.

Therefore there is no such thing as "bad" or "good" with respect to karma.