Re: Bush Says a Lot of People Put Their Reputations on the Line With WMD Claims


<Jim10293@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:fqcrk49u24j1f64im6ehei16tlec67fqbi@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:42:09 -0500, "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<Jim10293@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:hj6rk4pntaghb2lit7mai6n6v82vu763kf@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 18:35:36 -0500, "Evelyn" <evelyn.ruut@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


<Jim10293@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6pqqk41lftbuv3st15hpd01qn6le24945h@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 00:48:13 -0800, El Castor <No_One@xxxxxxxx> wrote:


You are right. While many may rail about religion, with exception of
some extremist who practice polygamy or other kinds of things, Islam
is the only religion on any scale that is dangerous to people of any
faith they come in contact with. On a map one can highlight all the
places where there is violence around the Islamic world and the issue
is Islam trying to destroy resident religion. Chechnea, Nigeria,
Kashmir, Sudan, Thailand, and lots of other places and being exported
to South America and elsewhere in addition to the west.

The only concern I would see about religion being some threat to us is
Islam. The rest - what is the point of the fear mongering?


David Koresh was a protestant Christian.
Jim Jones was a protestant Christian.
--

Please read my comment again. These folks were about as close to
being Christians as others who grab some tangent of a religion and
then believe they have found a place. These people were extremists
and I suspect most Christians would look at what they believed and
practiced and find little in common. I addressed these kind of
'believers' who are missing the point in another post.


You SEEMED to be alleging that only other religions had dangerous
extremists.
I offered you two well known christians who were dangerous extremists.

--
hmmmm

If we are are saying 'religion' and intending some larger body like
Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, or Islam. Then the belief's or
actions of some very small subset that are way outside the main body
of belief of most of the larger body's thinking, then the only
religion I'd see being extremist or dangerous would be Islam.

If we are narrowing to subsets, then yes, there are Christian groups
that are dangerous or extremists. You are right with this
redefinition of what was the focus earlier between mg, Jeff and me.
Extremism by definition is on the fringe and outside what most others
may do.

The actions of some smaller subset acting contrary to central ideas of
a religion can't be honestly held up to represent the whole. Or, the
madness and violence of your two examples no more represent Christians
then the violence by Sinhalese Buddhist for many decades towards
Hindus and Christians in Sri Lanka.

http://www.lankanewspapers.com/news/2008/9/32009_space.html
From the New York Times:
The tsunami may also deepen religious and ethnic divisions, perhaps
dangerously. In Sri Lanka in recent years, dozens of churches have
been attacked by militant Buddhists. It is the Christians, some
Buddhists say, who are to blame for the tsunami.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/international/worldspecial4/12religion.html?pagewanted=print&position=

The wholehearted support by Zen and Pure Land Buddhist leaders in
Japan for invading Korea and later Japan is very much out of line
especially support for killing others. But, like these two groups who
acted far outside the principles of Buddhism, many other groups over
centuries have not only supported warfare, but have engaged in it.
Does that therefore mean we paint Buddhism with the actions of
militant monks who today in Sri Lanka, Laos and Burma and historically
in many places stray from what you believe to be Buddhism.

http://www.villagezendo.org/journal/april_08/zen_at_war_april_08.html

Underneath the mythology of Gongfu, Wushu and Shaolin Monastary in
China is that it was a real Shaolin Buddhist monastary among many that
included marital arts. Within Chinese history are many references to
different monastaries (schools) being involved in warfare and violence
including at times inciting warfare against or in response to conflict
with Confucians and Taoists. Real warfare and violence including
during one era attemtping to destroy the Taoism as a competing
philosophy.

There are a great many of these periods of violence involving
Buddhists including many in Tibet where competing beliefs were
destroyed and surviving temples and monks taken into victorious
beliefs. The Fifth Dalai Lama and his son are notorious for murdering
rivals and destroying rival temples. The Sixth Dalai Lama was reputed
to have spent much of his time and energy on wine, women and poetry.

You have to know that branding, amputation, flogging and such were
normally used by ruling Dalai Lama in Tibet in ancient times and there
were no qualms about hanging those found guilty of number of crimes.
Reading Chapter 13 of de Filippi's, "An Account on Tibet" presents a
gruesome picture of gallows, justice involving guilt being determined
by reaching into jar of boiling oil to remove a stone and being guilty
if he gets the white one while he is guilty if he gets the red! Or
lick a hot iron three times and if unburned they are innocent. It is
colorful the kingdom ruled by the Dalai Lama of that age.
http://books.google.com/books?id=EzIDSAdG-wgC&dq=de+filippi+tibet&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=QvSadfKhpT&sig=0ZzQiC4ModgE5EuMjY3PPe6x-U4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA174,M1
I could go on at great lengths about Soka Gakai being considered very
'unBuddhist' by many Buddhists, Buddhist complicity in the Vietnamese
warfare including it's role with various royalhouses, and other cases
if you are interested.

Christians acting outside their faith is nothing peculiar to
Christianity. It happens and has happened throught our shared belief,
Buddhism.

Will the moments when Buddhists were very un-Buddhist in their actions
alter your position on being a Buddhist? It sure doesn't change mine!
These examples were not representative but moments when selfish,
greedy, or perhaps bad people misused their knowledge and power.



Of course you are right that buddhists also have their share of dangerous and destructive elements. I never said they didn't.

What was alleged earlier, was that religion itself is a toxic virus. You then corrected him and said that Islam was destructive. I mentioned that christianity also had destructive elements, and named some. Now you have provided instances where buddhists also were destructive and intolerant, which reinforces the original contention that all religions have elements of toxic and destructive movements, sects, and leaders.

And of course it doesn't turn me away from being a buddhist because I know what the buddha himself taught, and it wasn't that sort of behavior.

The thing that MG originally alleged, about religion being a virus, was correct, because this kind of behavior is a human problem more than that of the religions themselves. But nonetheless, since human beings can have pure and good examples in the founders of their various faiths, yet still behave in evil ways, MG's comment is still correct, in my opinion. It is misuse of that which is meant to bring peace and comfort and to teach human beings to be kind to one another, and it is a misuse that is very widespread.

Again, a human problem more than anything else.

So what did Buddha say about differing views? Here is the Sutta Nipata....

Sutta Nipata IV.5
Paramatthaka Sutta
title: "On Views"

A person who associates himself with certain views,
considering them as best and making them supreme in the world,
he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior;
therefore he is not free from contention (with others).
In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed,
he sees a profit for himself.
Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as
worthless.

Those skilled (in judgment) say that (a view becomes) a bond if,
relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior.

Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen,
heard or cognized,
nor upon ritual observances.

He should not present himself as equal to,
nor imagine himself to be inferior,
nor better than, another.

Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held
and not taking up (another),
he does not seek a support even in knowledge.

Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides.

He does not [have] recourse to a view at all.

In whom there is no inclination to either extreme,
for becoming or non-becoming,
here or in another existence,
for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the
doctrines assumed (by others).

Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the
least notion.

That brahmana who does not grasp at a view,
with what could he be identified in the world?

They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion);
doctrines are not accepted by them.

A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views.

-- vv. 796-803


--
--
Best Regards,
Evelyn

Rest in a sky-like mind.
Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
Breathe like the wind circling the world

.

Relevant Pages
Loading