Sunday, May 30, 2004
Messiahs are always in Fashion . . . Audrey Manning
The basic philosophy of Christianity is love your neighbour as yourself and turn the other cheek. This can be accomplished by giving up self to follow Jesus. Buddhism’s basic philosophy is centred on the suffering of life, which has a cause and an end. The way to end suffering is to give up emphasis on self. Both religions are similar in that they preach love and peace through giving up your self.
Christianity preaches peace but the practical outcome of its preaching is the direct opposite of its philosophy. Because of the wide chasm that exists between philosophy and outcome, the Christian religion and churches are presently coming under close scrutiny. In the wake of events in the Middle East, more people are turning away from their Christian roots to look for a more peaceful spirituality.
Some individuals in the West are embracing such faiths as Buddhism. As a result, the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan head of state and spiritual ruler of one of the four major sects of Buddhism is becoming a celebrity. Many Hollywood movie stars are his followers and this will raise the profile of anyone, even that of the Dalai Lama.
The 14th Dalai Lama was born on 6 July 1935, to a peasant family in a small village called Taktser in North-eastern Tibet. He was recognised as the Dalai Lama, the traditional Tibetan spiritual and temporal leader at aged 2. On November 17, 1950, he was called upon to assume full political power (head of the State and Government) in reaction to the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army.
Beijing’s policies in Eastern Tibet ignited a popular uprising and resistance that spread throughout the country. On 10 March 1959 Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, exploded with the largest demonstration in Tibetan history, calling on China to leave Tibet and reaffirming Tibet's independence.
The Chinese army foiled the Tibetan National Uprising. The Dalai Lama and 80,000 followers escaped to India where he was given political asylum. Since 1960, he has resided in Dharamsala, India, known as “Little Lhasa”, the seat of the Tibetan Government-in-exile. The Dalai Lama travels the world raising the profile of Tibet.
The Dalai Lama is presently visiting Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin is meeting with the spiritual leader even though the Chinese government disapproves. Of course the Prime Minister is right not to let another government call the shots for Canada. Yet, a question remains, why is the Prime Minister meeting with the exiled, undemocratic leader of the Tibetan government? We are assumed to believe that this exiled government has some kind of legitimacy.
Just how much do we know about China or Tibet or the Tibetan people? Just how much does the Dalai Lama know about the Tibet of today? Tibet’s history, culture, religion and political systems are unfamiliar to Westerners. Life did not stop for the Tibetan people when the Dalai Lama and his followers fled Tibet. The people who did not flee are hard at work making a better life for their children.
The Dalai Lama was awarded a Nobel Peace prize. Yet what ‘peace’ has been the result of his efforts? The Dalai Lama is now a foreigner to Tibet. Unlike Nelson Mandela, who spent years in prison, the Dalai Lama lives a life of privilege. With the mystique surrounding the Dalai Lama, how much of what we see and hear is slick advertising? The way the West and, in particular, Hollywood stars are behaving comes close to propaganda in its largely uncritical romance with the Tibetan religious clerics.
Have we forgotten that our own secular democratic governance fought a long battle with the ‘divine right of kings’ founded on religious certainties? Are we forgetting the problems being encountered in Iraq because of ‘religious truths’? Have we forgotten the Iranian revolution led by another seemingly attractive and mystical ‘religious’ leader?
The holier than thou attitude that the media and filmmakers exhibit in portraying the Buddhist religion is disturbing. The ideas of that religion are something every human should consider but to understand the meaning and purpose of life, rather than as absolute truth.
Buddhism has a simple and straightforward message. But, then again, so does Christianity! Buddhism professes to be a religion of peace. But what does that mean? It would appear that peace means the same for the Dalai Lama as it does for President George Bush. When asked the question by Hanna Gartner, the Dalai Lama said that peace does not mean that you can’t defend yourself if a ‘mad dog’ attacks. He proposed to attack the legs instead of the head when dealing with a ‘mad dog’.
The question for the Dalai Lama is, “What is a leg?” Is President Bush aiming at a leg when he attacks Iraq? For that matter are the ‘terrorists’ aiming at a leg when they attack the Americans and the Israelis? The Chinese people are being portrayed as merciless occupiers of Tibet. What is the meaning of merciless occupiers? Are the Americans merciless occupiers in Iraq? Are the Israelis merciless occupiers in Palestine? Need more be said?
The basic philosophy of Christianity is love your neighbour as yourself and turn the other cheek. This can be accomplished by giving up self to follow Jesus. Buddhism’s basic philosophy is centred on the suffering of life, which has a cause and an end. The way to end suffering is to give up emphasis on self. Both religions are similar in that they preach love and peace through giving up your self.
Christianity preaches peace but the practical outcome of its preaching is the direct opposite of its philosophy. Because of the wide chasm that exists between philosophy and outcome, the Christian religion and churches are presently coming under close scrutiny. In the wake of events in the Middle East, more people are turning away from their Christian roots to look for a more peaceful spirituality.
Some individuals in the West are embracing such faiths as Buddhism. As a result, the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan head of state and spiritual ruler of one of the four major sects of Buddhism is becoming a celebrity. Many Hollywood movie stars are his followers and this will raise the profile of anyone, even that of the Dalai Lama.
The 14th Dalai Lama was born on 6 July 1935, to a peasant family in a small village called Taktser in North-eastern Tibet. He was recognised as the Dalai Lama, the traditional Tibetan spiritual and temporal leader at aged 2. On November 17, 1950, he was called upon to assume full political power (head of the State and Government) in reaction to the invasion of Tibet by the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army.
Beijing’s policies in Eastern Tibet ignited a popular uprising and resistance that spread throughout the country. On 10 March 1959 Lhasa, the capital of Tibet, exploded with the largest demonstration in Tibetan history, calling on China to leave Tibet and reaffirming Tibet's independence.
The Chinese army foiled the Tibetan National Uprising. The Dalai Lama and 80,000 followers escaped to India where he was given political asylum. Since 1960, he has resided in Dharamsala, India, known as “Little Lhasa”, the seat of the Tibetan Government-in-exile. The Dalai Lama travels the world raising the profile of Tibet.
The Dalai Lama is presently visiting Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin is meeting with the spiritual leader even though the Chinese government disapproves. Of course the Prime Minister is right not to let another government call the shots for Canada. Yet, a question remains, why is the Prime Minister meeting with the exiled, undemocratic leader of the Tibetan government? We are assumed to believe that this exiled government has some kind of legitimacy.
Just how much do we know about China or Tibet or the Tibetan people? Just how much does the Dalai Lama know about the Tibet of today? Tibet’s history, culture, religion and political systems are unfamiliar to Westerners. Life did not stop for the Tibetan people when the Dalai Lama and his followers fled Tibet. The people who did not flee are hard at work making a better life for their children.
The Dalai Lama was awarded a Nobel Peace prize. Yet what ‘peace’ has been the result of his efforts? The Dalai Lama is now a foreigner to Tibet. Unlike Nelson Mandela, who spent years in prison, the Dalai Lama lives a life of privilege. With the mystique surrounding the Dalai Lama, how much of what we see and hear is slick advertising? The way the West and, in particular, Hollywood stars are behaving comes close to propaganda in its largely uncritical romance with the Tibetan religious clerics.
Have we forgotten that our own secular democratic governance fought a long battle with the ‘divine right of kings’ founded on religious certainties? Are we forgetting the problems being encountered in Iraq because of ‘religious truths’? Have we forgotten the Iranian revolution led by another seemingly attractive and mystical ‘religious’ leader?
The holier than thou attitude that the media and filmmakers exhibit in portraying the Buddhist religion is disturbing. The ideas of that religion are something every human should consider but to understand the meaning and purpose of life, rather than as absolute truth.
Buddhism has a simple and straightforward message. But, then again, so does Christianity! Buddhism professes to be a religion of peace. But what does that mean? It would appear that peace means the same for the Dalai Lama as it does for President George Bush. When asked the question by Hanna Gartner, the Dalai Lama said that peace does not mean that you can’t defend yourself if a ‘mad dog’ attacks. He proposed to attack the legs instead of the head when dealing with a ‘mad dog’.
The question for the Dalai Lama is, “What is a leg?” Is President Bush aiming at a leg when he attacks Iraq? For that matter are the ‘terrorists’ aiming at a leg when they attack the Americans and the Israelis? The Chinese people are being portrayed as merciless occupiers of Tibet. What is the meaning of merciless occupiers? Are the Americans merciless occupiers in Iraq? Are the Israelis merciless occupiers in Palestine? Need more be said?
Saturday, May 08, 2004
Who is a Fundamentalist? .... Audrey Manning
We think we know fundamentalism as it applies to religious groups. It is taken to mean groups of people who try to enforce their beliefs upon others. We think we can easily protect ourselves from fundamentalists, as recognising others’ religious beliefs seems easy. But are we so sure we can recognise the nature of our own belief, and see if we are also fundamentalist?
This question came to mind after encountering some people on a Secular Humanism web forum. A number of individuals were trying to engage in a civil discussion on the pros and cons of the wide spread practice of circumcision. In view of the problem encountered trying to achieve this simple task, we asked ourselves the question: could there be some non-religious fundamentalism?
We know the beliefs of the religions of the Book: God created the world. Humans were expelled from paradise when they ate the apple of knowledge. Since then humans have been born in a state of original sin. Life is a perpetual struggle to avoid sin, by hard work and obedience. We are finally judged according to what we are able to achieve.
What was found in this secular humanism group was not so different. According to the Secu lar Humanists, we are born with good and bad instincts. We have to struggle all our lives with the overwhelming desire to be bad. With the use of our intelligence, we have to re-enforce constantly the good instincts. In this belief, too, we are recognised according to that which we achieve.
The only difference is the presence of God, or how we perceive Nature. The difference is a universe created as a whole, or one building itself up without aim. But all that really matters to both groups is what is required of us on a daily basis. In that, there is not such a difference.
How come? Probably because throughout history religions of the Book have succeeded in deeply influencing every aspect of our society, even that part of the society which claims to be secular.
What gave us this feeling of fundamentalism in the Secular Humanist forum? After all, these ideas of good and evil, this notion of merit and work are quite common. What gave us this impression was the difficulty to discus, the reluctance to think, that life could be other than fighting spiritual or natural demons.
This is quite understandable in the case of beliefs. Faith gives strength. And in the religions of books, we have, precisely, something revealed to us that cannot be discussed. But secular thoughts are assumed to be based on philosophical and scientific reflections, on doubts. There are always news facts that arise, new ways of understanding them that appear. Being assured can be seen as quality in religion, but as a fault in secular belief.
Religious people say that they are conducting their lives according to their beliefs. Instead, secular humanists conduct their lives according to the current interpretation of the facts they ‘know’.
A good illustration was a long discussion about circumcision. Secular Humanists defend circumcision saying that scientific studies prove that it could help to prevent future diseases. They believe that circumcision accidents, leading to the death of the child, are rare, so that the end justifies the means.
Well, what if the facts change? What if new studies show that there are also some long-term disadvantages of circumcision, that the long-term advantages are not so assured? Secular humanists believe that they will then change the way they behave accordingly. And that, it this sense, they believe they are the opposite of religious people. Really?
The common point is that both groups base their behaviour on something unique, the revealed Scriptures on one side, or the belief in some facts on the other. And this explains the origin of the term fundamentalism. It comes from fundamental, which the dictionary says, means the essential element, the basis on which we can build further development. A fundamentalist is thus someone who builds his/her life on a single, fundamental, element.
That is fine. Everyone can build their lives as they choose. So why is it troubling to hear about fundamentalism? Because it is close to extremism! Extremism is when one tries to spread one’s own beliefs to others. It is difficult, when we are convinced about the rightness of our actions, to resist the temptation of imposing them around us. And this is the type of behaviour of which we are so rightfully afraid. But are not these people who choose to circumcise their male babies, based on their belief of the moment, imposing their actions on other people, their children?
It reminds me of the birth of my sons. It was a challenge to resist the advice of the doctors who wanted to circumcise them as soon as they were born. For me, there was no good reason for this procedure! They were born perfect! As adults they would be free to make their own choices.
It begs the question, why the desperate need for outside guidance on how we should conduct our lives? …[with contributions from Stéphane Douady] Originally published in the Beacon ... Gander, Newfoundland, Canada
We think we know fundamentalism as it applies to religious groups. It is taken to mean groups of people who try to enforce their beliefs upon others. We think we can easily protect ourselves from fundamentalists, as recognising others’ religious beliefs seems easy. But are we so sure we can recognise the nature of our own belief, and see if we are also fundamentalist?
This question came to mind after encountering some people on a Secular Humanism web forum. A number of individuals were trying to engage in a civil discussion on the pros and cons of the wide spread practice of circumcision. In view of the problem encountered trying to achieve this simple task, we asked ourselves the question: could there be some non-religious fundamentalism?
We know the beliefs of the religions of the Book: God created the world. Humans were expelled from paradise when they ate the apple of knowledge. Since then humans have been born in a state of original sin. Life is a perpetual struggle to avoid sin, by hard work and obedience. We are finally judged according to what we are able to achieve.
What was found in this secular humanism group was not so different. According to the Secu lar Humanists, we are born with good and bad instincts. We have to struggle all our lives with the overwhelming desire to be bad. With the use of our intelligence, we have to re-enforce constantly the good instincts. In this belief, too, we are recognised according to that which we achieve.
The only difference is the presence of God, or how we perceive Nature. The difference is a universe created as a whole, or one building itself up without aim. But all that really matters to both groups is what is required of us on a daily basis. In that, there is not such a difference.
How come? Probably because throughout history religions of the Book have succeeded in deeply influencing every aspect of our society, even that part of the society which claims to be secular.
What gave us this feeling of fundamentalism in the Secular Humanist forum? After all, these ideas of good and evil, this notion of merit and work are quite common. What gave us this impression was the difficulty to discus, the reluctance to think, that life could be other than fighting spiritual or natural demons.
This is quite understandable in the case of beliefs. Faith gives strength. And in the religions of books, we have, precisely, something revealed to us that cannot be discussed. But secular thoughts are assumed to be based on philosophical and scientific reflections, on doubts. There are always news facts that arise, new ways of understanding them that appear. Being assured can be seen as quality in religion, but as a fault in secular belief.
Religious people say that they are conducting their lives according to their beliefs. Instead, secular humanists conduct their lives according to the current interpretation of the facts they ‘know’.
A good illustration was a long discussion about circumcision. Secular Humanists defend circumcision saying that scientific studies prove that it could help to prevent future diseases. They believe that circumcision accidents, leading to the death of the child, are rare, so that the end justifies the means.
Well, what if the facts change? What if new studies show that there are also some long-term disadvantages of circumcision, that the long-term advantages are not so assured? Secular humanists believe that they will then change the way they behave accordingly. And that, it this sense, they believe they are the opposite of religious people. Really?
The common point is that both groups base their behaviour on something unique, the revealed Scriptures on one side, or the belief in some facts on the other. And this explains the origin of the term fundamentalism. It comes from fundamental, which the dictionary says, means the essential element, the basis on which we can build further development. A fundamentalist is thus someone who builds his/her life on a single, fundamental, element.
That is fine. Everyone can build their lives as they choose. So why is it troubling to hear about fundamentalism? Because it is close to extremism! Extremism is when one tries to spread one’s own beliefs to others. It is difficult, when we are convinced about the rightness of our actions, to resist the temptation of imposing them around us. And this is the type of behaviour of which we are so rightfully afraid. But are not these people who choose to circumcise their male babies, based on their belief of the moment, imposing their actions on other people, their children?
It reminds me of the birth of my sons. It was a challenge to resist the advice of the doctors who wanted to circumcise them as soon as they were born. For me, there was no good reason for this procedure! They were born perfect! As adults they would be free to make their own choices.
It begs the question, why the desperate need for outside guidance on how we should conduct our lives? …[with contributions from Stéphane Douady] Originally published in the Beacon ... Gander, Newfoundland, Canada
