Reasons to be Buddhist (FW)

So I'm home sick today.
And just like every teenage girl when she's home sick I decided to research Buddhism.
It started last weekend when my dad brought me a book on mindfulness he thought I'd enjoy.
It was by a Buddhist monk named Thich Nhat Hanh...
and it was awesome.
Suddenly, almost everything my life seemed to be lacking was found in the wise words of this monk.
Everything the world seems to be lacking could be found in the wise words of this monk.
Which brings me to why I've started to love Buddhism:
1.) Simplicity:
There's something really nice about a religion that doesn't ask too much of you. Since Buddhism is more of a mindset than a religion it doesn't require you to go to mass every Sunday or to avoid certain foods on certain days. It just requires you to love the world and feel compassion toward everything and everyone. I like the idea of humans living out their religion rather than practicing it on certain days of the week.
2.) Mindfulness and being in the present:
Many people focus too much on the future and the past. For the future, they focus on getting into heaven. Some are so preoccupied with the ending goal that they miss out on living in the now. Others are so preoccupied with past sins and mistakes that they live out the rest of their life in guilty memory of their mistakes. Buddhism focuses one to stay in the present. One must forgive ones past mistakes and realize that it is only through the present that we get to the future.
3.) No ill will
Do you realize how much nicer this world would be if everyone agreed not to harm anyone else? There would be no wars, no crimes and very few problems. I know this is very idealistic but it's a nice thought. Plus, Tibetan monks live out this lifestyle already so maybe goodwill is not too far out of reach for the rest of us.
Buddhism Deal-breakers:
1.) No God
Although Buddhism is considered a religion, it does not exactly have a God. Rather it has this idea of spirituality and dharma that lies within all of us. Buddhist can pray to the Dalai Llama or to Buddha, but their is no deity in the way that there is in other religions. Perhaps this isn't such a bad thing though. Without a God, there is no God to fight over. This idea does however make it more difficult for a protestant like me to consider converting. To go from the idea of a God to no God is a huge deal.
2.) The men have the power:
All the many Buddhist sects the leading roles are given to men. This is of course the same in every single other large World religion, however it does serve as a reminder that Buddhism is not exactly my utopic religion.

What qualifies a saint: An examination of the suggested canonization of Emilio Sandoz

So my interest in what qualifies a saint began when I was reading "The Sparrow" and D.W. Yarbrough and Anne Edwards kept referring to the fact that Emilio Sandoz was so holy that he might in fact be a saint.
I was very confused.
Having been raised in a very protestant household my experiences and knowledge about sainthood only consists of having seen a sculpture of St. Francis of Assisi dancing in Santa Fe and putting a picture of it as my cellphone background for nearly a year.

He's beautiful, right?
So as one would, I went on to Google dictionary and Merriam-Webster Dictionary to see if Emilio Sandoz really qualified as a saint. I mainly got loose terms such as "one of God's holy people" and "one eminent for piety or virtue". My favorite definition was a saint is "an illustrious predecessor". In these terms Emilio Sandoz could certainly be considered a saint at that time in the book. He acted pious, virtuous and seemed to all his friends as one looked on by God with favor. Yet many people are religious and live well. Does that make them all saints too?
Dummies.com doesn't think so (my second go-to resource after Google-dictionary). Apparently there is much more criteria one has to meet before being canonized than I thought. Firstly, one has to be dead to be a saint. Once a possible saint has died, the persons case is brought before the Pope who then decides if they qualify. The person needs to have completed at least two miracles with eye-witnesses and have a specific cause.Then they are given more background checks then a suspected terrorist. If the miracles seem completely legitimate and all is well then they are canonized. Deus vult. If God wills it.

In the traditional Catholic sense, Emilio Sandoz is nowhere near a saint. He was born to a life of drug-selling and stealing in La Perla, Puerto Rico. From there he led a rebellious life even after he was given a second-chance as a reformed school boy. Eventually he converted to Christianity and became a Jesuit Priest. In his journey on Rakhat there were times when he seemed blessed by God. He mentions on several times that he had "fallen in love with God." He does amazing things in Rakhat, such as establishing solid relationships with aliens and turning away from the women he loves because he knows he must remain celibate. Yet, are these miracles. No. They're extraordinary, yet doable. He must have had unbelievable charisma and piety to have all his friends believe he was a saint. He wasn't. He was a man, prone to make mistakes like any other man. This is seen even more in the end of the book, which I shall neglect to mention since my book group has not gotten that far.
Oh, I neglected to mention that to be considered a saint one's body has to be dug up and examined. A saints body does not decay, the blood never dries, and apparently it smells like roses. Since Emilio has not yet died in the book I cannot consider or examine this specific qualification.

How far have we really come?

In 1920, the 19th amendment was passed so that women in the United States could finally vote and have a chance to influence political decisions in some small ways. It was a huge step. Suffragists around the world were ecstatic. Feminists threw parties. Many agreed that with this step, women were on the way to being seen as equals to men. They would no longer be seen in terms of beauty or how well their house was kept up. Women dreamed that in time they would not be judged by their measurements but rather by the strength of their character.
I'm here to tell you that none of this has happened.
It has been almost a century since the passing of the 19th amendment and in many ways women are in the same positions and mindsets that they were 93 years ago.
Does America promote equality? No. One of the lead workers behind the passing of the 19th amendment, Alice Paul, tried for years to pass the ERA(Equal Rights Amendment) which basically stated that men and women should be treated the same under the law. Large groups are still trying to get the ERA passed but so far the United States government has taken no steps to do so.
So I'm sure many of you readers have pegged me as an angry feminist by now, and are currently googling statistics showing much larger percentages of women in the workplace since 1920.

Yes, I caught you. Although there has been an increase in women in the workplace in certain fields (almost half of people enrolled in Medical School are women) many fields have still remain predominantly male. Women workers also tend to get stuck at entry-level positions much longer than males. Studies have shown that although women make up about 50% of the workforce in America they make up only 6% of the corporate CEO and higher-level executive roles.

Have you ever heard that women make 70 cents for every dollar a man makes? I hear that all the time. It's complete nonsense. They actually make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes. If you don't think of that as a big difference think about it in this way. If a woman and man hold the same job-level and the man gets paid $50,000 annually the woman only gets $43,500 annually. $6,500 a year could mean the difference of a single mom riding her bike to work or driving a car. It could also mean the difference between sending a kid off to college or not.
The giant rant:
Just to have some more comparison fun, lets look at 19th century 17-year old girls and 21st century 17-year old girls. In modern times, a larger percentage of 17-year old girls are in school, and a much smaller percentage are married with several children. Families also no longer have to worry about providing dowries for girls (although the bride's family does usually pay for the wedding).  So on the outside, 17-year old girls are in a much better position now... but on the inside, have they really changed? Seeing as I spend a large amount of time with 17-year old girls I can tell you that their main insecurities lie in superficial things: their appearance, and how many guys like them. Almost a hundred years after we won the vote, are we still determining our value in society by how attractive we are to men? Are we kidding?!? In group settings, girls are still unbelievably caddy, slyly putting others down, not about their intelligence or personality or anything that actually matters, but about their appearance. What the hell did Susan B. Anthony fight for? If Alice Paul saw how superficial teenage girls are, even after she fought for there right to share their opinions and make a difference, she would sob. Plus, I really don't think Alice Paul was much of a crier. Girls, we have been given the chance to to be more than a body, or a maid or a cook. Why waste this opportunity? The reason women make 77 cents to the dollar is because not enough people are standing up and saying that something is wrong. The reason only 6% of corporate managers are women is because women are too willing to sit back in their gender roles and do not believe that they are just as capable as a man in almost every single job. Some women think that acting dumb is attractive. This idea is supported by the fact that many men tend to go for dumb girls. This is a cruel fact of nature. Don't be afraid to be intelligent. It makes conversations SO much more interesting.
Give Alice Paul something to be proud of.

Apologies for this post:
This post was pretty intense. If you actually managed to read this whole thing, I'm impressed. If you're a man I didn't mean to offend you. I'm sure that you personally are a very nice person and would be just fine with the ERA passing. If you're a 17-year old girl, I also didn't mean to offend you. It's not girls' faults that they are insecure about appearances. Society and media tends to create an atmosphere that breeds insecurities. If you're Ms. Pyle, I apologize for the length of this post. I'm sure I went WAY past my word limit...