One thing I want to point out about this article:
Impulses and feelings of any kind may be regarded as demonic in origin. This also occurs in some Eastern traditions in which the emphasis is placed on transcending the material realm with its beguiling desires and sensations.
Does anyone know what the second sentence is referring to? This general, even generic statement appears to be some kind of misunderstanding, according to my understanding. But really, does anyone out there who knows about the eastern traditions (I also have no idea why the E is in caps, there's a lot of stuff that is from the east) understand what this is supposed to be referring to?
In any case, this could be a classic misinterpretation of Buddhism. Frankly I'm kind of surprised seeing as how this guy is at Berkeley. Although he did qualify the statement as "some" eastern traditions, he did say "the emphasis is placed on transcending the material realm". This implies that some does have such a teaching, and although it is true in a sense the way this statement is phrased I think it is almost certain to be taken the wrong way. Yes, Buddhism does say that suffering is caused by "desire", but that is another misunderstanding.
The author notes that "There is a fine line between bias against religion as inherently pathological and naivete about the potential of some religious systems for undermining a healthy sense of self." Well, seeing as how Buddhism teaches there is no self, this certainly would be cause for concern. If that is the case, and the author is indeed aware of this, he might as well name the religion instead of beating around the bush in an effort to be politically correct and in effect doing the readers a disservice.
Of course, another way of looking at the no self idea is seeing what is not-self. Frankly, your identity as a witness (or ex-witness, or some kind of disease label) is not-self, and the same applies to any of the other roles you take. I think what is important to note here is that the idea of desire (or clinging, in this case to a religious identity) causing suffering is to be understood in terms of transcending the conditioned mind.
Moyers also says that "Constant self monitoring and rigid self control, along with confession of every sin in prayer are regarded by fundamentalists as the only means of avoiding divine condemnation" and "the literalism characteristic of fundamentalist thought, an "evil" thought or feeling is considered to be just as sinful as an evil act." No argument there. However, the fact is thoughts do precede action, and self monitoring allows you to be conscious of these thoughts before they turn into physical behavior. Maybe I'm just nit-picking, but I see no problem with self monitoring or self control. The former is great if you can do it, (I think we all to do a degree, it's just that normally it is at a lower level of intensity, and at other times it's higher) and the latter is only a problem if it is some kind of repressive behavior, "rigid" does not say a whole lot to me.
I think the key here is to monitor your thoughts without judgement. This is basically the approach of insight meditation, where you basically hold your feelings, sensations and emotions and try not to run out of the room screaming. (of course, in some cases it may be very hard to do and not appropriate) After practicing that for a while, you learn that you can have these sensations without acting on them, and that they are basically impermanent (another Buddhist teaching, also goes with the no self idea) so they eventually do fade away. It is in this sense that the "physical realm" is transcended - not by denying that you have feelings, but by fully expriencing them. I would think that when people practice meditation and see this for themselves, it goes a lot farther than the therapist reminding them. (if they ever really "knew" that) Ultimately, this type of practice also points to the fact that you are not these conditioned thoughts and feelings. Also, these things being impermanent it is not a belief but a simple fact that ultimately, they have no hold on you.
