Considerations of freedom of and from religion.

[Attis]

As much as I am a considerate atheist to many who are religious, many who are my friends online and offline, I still find the fanatics, the soothsayers, and the hypocrites to be often too much to keep silent about. This clip is one such example of these times where I won't remain silent. When I came out atheist to my mom, it was probably one of the easier things even though my mother just converted to Catholicism, because she knew how it was to be persecuted and hated. My dad, not so much, but he knew he had no place to tell me what I will do with my own person since I was an adult and was living outside of his home by now. Still, it's kids like this one that my heart goes out to, because I've heard of such persecutions, even leading to physical abuse, directly as beatings or indirectly as starvation, and deprivation of personal liberties. Sometimes even death in the rarest of cases. Granted, this is not the norm of most religious parents who find out their children are swinging toward or are atheists, but it should be noted that in America, and among other heavily religious nations, this still happens, possibly more so in theocratic nations like Iran and Budon (Buddhist Theocracy).

Ayn Rand once noted that religion was the first attempt by humans to form proto-philosophies to explain the world around them and their place in it, but that such religions were insufficient with more true philosophies that have come to replace them; Objectivism, Naturalism, and Aristotleanism included. Perhaps this is the signal for the great movement away from fear of the dark to the love of the 'Sun' and our personal power(s). Or perhaps this will continue on as a perpetual dance between those that seek faith and those that seek Nature. Who knows.

-- Brede

[Susan]

I saw that on a video sifting site I monitor. All I can say is 

I LOVE that she brings up christmas. After all, what is god but Santa for adults?

That's stolen from the discussion on this video site...

and lastly:

Freaks are freaks, be they Christian, Muslim, other religions, or Athiests. It's the individual, not the group as a whole.... Every group of individuals that you can name, has it's own share of freaks.

[Attis]

Speaking of which, here's one of the responses that I found most elegant on the issue.

-- Brede

[nancyj]

Pardon me, but a correction is in order:

...theocratic nations like Iran and Budon (Buddhist Theocracy).

You are seriously confused.
A theocracy is a government which is inextricably tied to a Theistic religion, practically always a Monotheistic one.
No Buddhist even believes in a Deity, much less anything like Theism. If you are going to make such an assertion, maybe you should provide some examples on how this works.

NB: (transliterated from the Sanskrit)
BUDH, "awaken, communicate" (BUDDHA; BODHISATVA, "a saint, apostle"; BID < O.E. BUDON, "communicate")

Now, consider "freedom from, etc etc" in the context of this:

A Boddhisattva defers her own Nirvana (see: Moksha. Final Liberation from the wheel of Samsara, birth/rebirth, the whole round and round she goes rhythm) until all sentient creatures are able to get there from here, too.

IRONICALLY, I found this, trying to locate this Budon Nation deal (from The Anglo Saxon Dictionary):
-budon; pp. -boden To do wrong to, to offend, abuse, ill-use... (A Buddhist won't do these things, IE: is considerate.)

NJC

[Attis]

Um how does this refute my points? I need some citations, not hearsay.

-- Brede

[togetherwecan]

I saw that on a video sifting site I monitor. All I can say is 

I LOVE that she brings up christmas. After all, what is god but Santa for adults?

That's stolen from the discussion on this video site...

and lastly:

Freaks are freaks, be they Christian, Muslim, other religions, or Athiests. It's the individual, not the group as a whole.... Every group of individuals that you can name, has it's own share of freaks.

Bravo Susan, that's excellent!

[Attis]

Post-script errors. Budon was meant to be spelled Bhutan or Bhootun depending on your dialect. None the less, my point still stands.

-- Brede

[Hazumu]

That was very disturbing.  What was most disturbing is that I can easily believe that kind of thing goes on -- a LOT!

-K

[David W. Shelton]

Sadly, fundamentalism rears its ugly head in several religions and philosophies. It's basically an attitide of "if you don't belive like me, then you're beneath me."

Great thread, folks.

[cindianna_jones]

Brede,

I would wonder why you would air a private message publicly? Why was that necessary? Could you not play in the sandbox without an audience?

I find this sort of thing divisive.  And apparently so did Nancy.  You have driven her away with this response. 

We need not argue here. We need all the friends we can get.

Cindi

[Attis]

I'm sorry, but I won't let someone snipe at me in PM. If they want to air an honest grievance against my post, I'm more than happy to see it out. I'm glad she pointed out the spelling error, which I put a post-script notice in this thread, but her aggressive talk is unacceptable. I apologize for seemingly coming off harsh, but I could have said something much worse considering this is the typical response I get from folks of the 'eastern' slant on religion. It's strange to note that consider you expect such responses from fundies, but right there is the proof that fundies are fairly universal.

-- Brede

P.S. I removed the PM reply in question only because I think it now as rash, but I doesn't change my view that if someone wants reply to me, it's best to reply in the thread related, and not play games. Argumentation is great, it helps us all learn, but to make snipes as I've said before, is unacceptable. I'm sorry again for even doing what I did.

[togetherwecan]

I'm sorry, but I won't let someone snipe at me in PM. If they want to air an honest grievance against my post, I'm more than happy to see it out. I'm glad she pointed out the spelling error, which I put a post-script notice in this thread, but her aggressive talk is unacceptable. I apologize for seemingly coming off harsh, but I could have said something much worse considering this is the typical response I get from folks of the 'eastern' slant on religion. It's strange to note that consider you expect such responses from fundies, but right there is the proof that fundies are fairly universal.

-- Brede

P.S. I removed the PM reply in question only because I think it now as rash, but I doesn't change my view that if someone wants reply to me, it's best to reply in the thread related, and not play games. Argumentation is great, it helps us all learn, but to make snipes as I've said before, is unacceptable. I'm sorry again for even doing what I did.

Brede,

A PM is a *private* message with emphasis on Private. They are here for a purpose. Snarky sniping between members should be left off the public forums and taken into PM. That is typical board protocal anywhere and as far as I am concerned it is really bad form to post PM's in the public forums.
Obviously the other member had more class then to disrupt the board as a whole and take to private any issue she had with you. Your disagreements with another member are not the boards business and if you had an issue with receiving the PM or its contents you should have taken it up with a moderator or admin of Susan's.

Please refrain from posting PM's in the future. Thanks.

Note by Susan:

If you feel a pm is excessive then use the report this pm to the moderators option at the bottom right of the message.

[The Middle Way]

Um how does this refute my points? I need some citations, not hearsay.

-- Brede

(Wikipedia may be "hearsay" to you, as much as anything that refutes your POV, I don't know)
Here, from that source, very briefly:

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy.[1] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.

Now, tell us where this Budon place is, it does not appear to be on any map, or available in the context of any search criteria that meets 'Civil Rights Violations' or corresponds with any of these attempts at constructing the Lie that has been disseminated via the World Wide Web in at least two locations thus far.

Buddhism has been perceived as a threat by totalitarianist systems and the like almost since its inception over 2500 years ago, and the systems that don't like the awakening it might indicate have spread this sort of lie all throughout this history.

The Middle Way.
(That which lies between Materialism and Nihilism, btw.)

Post-script errors. Budon was meant to be spelled Bhutan or Bhootun depending on your dialect. None the less, my point still stands.

-- Brede

Speaking of needing citations, what goes on there, exactly. Any member is free of course to do their own research on the history. It is unlikely they will find what this person is trying to argue here, in the name of "freedom of" her religion.

FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE:

No invading armies or sectarian violence in Bhutan, however. No grass-roots groundswell for change. It was the king himself, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, who ordered democracy by royal prerogative. Nice touch.
...
Bhutan, while not perfect as it is, has much to lose*. It is a poster child for environmental protection. (Mountain climbing is banned because the peaks are sacred.) Its living standards are rising steadily, outpacing those of some other nations in the neighborhood, especially in health and education. Development decisions are made locally. Women have considerable equality. The entire country has more or less been declared a no-smoking zone.

(* by going "democratic" as opposed to the monarchy that is, by most accounts not doing so badly.
(No tourism, though, gosh that's SO harsh.  ) By CONTRAST, A. Hitler rose to power in a democracy...)

You appear to refute yourself. It also would appear that you are in A Big Hurry to grind your axe here, and elsewhere.

In my view this is a sort of political fight, anyway. IE: is this fair territory for a spirituality thread in the first place? I have generally, from the Atheists I have spoken with, inferred that there is no such thing as spirit, to an "Atheist"...

* * *
"No invading armies or sectarian violence in Bhutan", Note Well. The original post in this thread confounds Bhutan with Iran, which is strictly Shiite-ruled, and as many of us are well aware, the whole mess in Iraq is about the differences between the Shia and the Sunni. By marked contrast, the 'sects' of Buddhism, EG: Hinayana (the Smaller Vehicle) and Mahayana (the Greater Vehicle) have been so civil about their differences, I'd bet that few here outside myself even know they exist.



additionally:
"Before this [Buddhist] monarchy, Bhutan was a theocracy with warlords."

[Attis]

(Wikipedia may be "hearsay" to you, as much as anything that refutes your POV, I don't know)
Here, from that source, very briefly:

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy.[1] Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.
...
You appear to refute yourself. It also would appear that you are in A Big Hurry to grind your axe here, and elsewhere.

Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy. [ ]

And you too, think I have an ax to grind.

1) Prove it by substantiating the means by which you know my mental states. If you can read minds. I got a friend that's a close friend to James Randi, and he would love to give you a million dollars for a scientific reproduction of that ability.

2) If you cannot prove my mental states nor intentions, will you retract said claims as to know my mental states?

3) If not that, then you have concluded a state of which we cannot communicate any further.

I do not guess the mental states of others, nor do I wish in kind for that to be done to me. It is unethical and unacceptable in any forum for that matter. You cannot suppose the mental states of others what so ever, you don't know me. You don't know what I do on my idle time. You don't know what my favorite food is. You don't know my pet's name. You don't know how many relatives I have. And so on, so you cannot under any logical constraints can claim with ethical authority to know what I am thinking in regards to my statements as they stand. What I have stated was that all religions are fundamentally evil in the respect that fundamentalism in such institutions is the causative issuance of evil for them. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every adherent of such religions as to oppose and remove such evils, not me, not the other non-believers and so on. And if you find that to be a problem, okay, then explain why it's a problem. This may come off as rude, or terse, or whatever, but I am not going to be silent as long as evil marches on this Earth, claiming sainthood and goodness when its acts are otherwise. And that is what I have said, period and end of story. No more snipes, no more gossip as to what me or others are thinking on the issue. Take what we all here say as it is for what is and no more. And please, stop playing mind reader.

A PM is a *private* message with emphasis on Private. They are here for a purpose. Snarky sniping between members should be left off the public forums and taken into PM. That is typical board protocal anywhere and as far as I am concerned it is really bad form to post PM's in the public forums.

Not when it extends to the point of being a matter of a debate on the topic of that said thread in said forum. Every post in regards to that thread should remain in public domain unless it is a request by the moderators as to either ceasing posting on said thread or rectification in regards to forum rules. I do not think it is excessive as to be honest and open in a debate. I do not understand the logic of trying to "private" debates when they are started in public, it is not acceptable, and in many regards, especially on forums I've frequented, it is unethical for good reasons.

If you feel a pm is excessive then use the report this pm to the moderators option at the bottom right of the message.

There should be the option to extend ignore to PMs.

-- Brede

[RebeccaFog]

Ayn Rand once noted that religion was the first attempt by humans to form proto-philosophies to explain the world around them and their place in it, but that such religions were insufficient with more true philosophies that have come to replace them; Objectivism, Naturalism, and Aristotleanism included. Perhaps this is the signal for the great movement away from fear of the dark to the love of the 'Sun' and our personal power(s). Or perhaps this will continue on as a perpetual dance between those that seek faith and those that seek Nature. Who knows.

-- Brede

My vote goes to perpetual dance

[David W. Shelton]

There should be the option to extend ignore to PMs.

-- Brede

There is. It's called the delete button. Let's all take a deep breath and relax. It's really easy to take offense when someone cuts a little close to us... Like Susan said: If someone sends a PM that's inappropriate, let the mods know. We'll address it accordingly. This forum is NOT the place to air dirty laudry.

So smile, already!   

My vote goes to perpetual dance

Rats. And I can't dance worth a hoot!

[RebeccaFog]

My vote goes to perpetual dance

Rats. And I can't dance worth a hoot!

Me neither, but I'm learning from Hidrix that maybe it doesn't matter.

[The Middle Way]

Buddhism is a dharmic, non-theistic religion and a philosophy. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts.

So, "Buddhist Theocracy" is linguistically not correct, in the first place.

Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy.

Linguistically as I have shown, Theocracy contains Theism, that is the word's root. If you actually want to do the reading you may. You have, in a spirituality forum, misrepresented an entire religion as Evil. I think that it can be easily demonstrated in a civil argument that you know nothing at all about that religion. If you can demonstrate its actual similarity in practice to other religions, namely how it correlates with Islam at large in Iran (the canard which I took exception to) in a coherent fashion, you are welcome to demonstrate that 'proof'. You haven't shown, in the first place, any evidence whatsoever that there are any persons in Bhutan that have a difficulty per their civil rights.

You appear to have combined these prejudices:

Non-Western Religion, connoting Otherness;
Non-Democratic system (Absolute Monarchy) of governance

and summed that to = Wrongness

And expanded a Dogmatic idea to indicate to us in this forum that you believe that system ought to be corrected according to your belief system. Which, it might be as easily demonstrated is based on a set of fallacies. (Also without comparing how that Wrong System works badly in comparison with systems that do fit into your schemata, that arguably work substantially better.)

This is a political argument and, I would prefer not to, but will, argue that in the proper forum.

TMW

for instance:

Theocracies are governments based in religions. Buddhism is a religion, therefore Bhutan is a theocracy.

"All religions I have any info about might be Theistic. A Theistic Religion in correlation with a governmental system is called a Theocracy. Therefore all religions in correlation with a government are Theocracies."

Is about as easily demonstrated an example of a fallacy in logic as there can be found. It's Logic 101 material.

[RebeccaFog]

Why are there entire posts in these threads where I have no idea of what the people are discussing?

Feel free to answer to answer truthfully.

[The Middle Way]

Why are there entire posts in these threads where I have no idea of what the people are discussing?

Feel free to answer to answer truthfully.

Feel free to do the research if what I say is Greek To You.

TMW

I have a long page of links and extracts on the history here, I ain't just whistling an imaginary Dixie in the fade out. The Last Imaginary Guitar Solo is ineffably beautiful, but it takes Big Ears to hear it.