China, a country with countless social, political and environmental issues and yet they choose to put their energy on suppressing a peaceful people and a peaceful spiritual practice. And yet they are awarded with hosting the Olympics. I, for one, will not be watching.

It’s easy to joke about China’s pronouncement on reincarnation; heck, it’s easy to joke about the idea of reincarnation. And it’s easy to think about the Dalai Lama and believe life without Chinese control would be so much better. And possibly it would be, but remember there will all too soon be a new leading lama and he may be very different from the present, pleasant one. And it wouldn’t hurt to recall what Tibet was like under the lamas.
To me it’s not the least bit obvious what to hope for, for Tibet.

China continues to be China….and the repression of Tibet is well established. This is just another of their continued control tactics.

Quote: China’s officially atheistic communist government has increasingly sought to direct Tibetan Buddhism, for centuries the basis of Tibet’s civil religion, cultural and political life.
The Chinese government is in essence choking the Tibetans by interfering with their religion, their culture, and political life. Disrespect for people different then themselves just to weld power is not a pretty picture of China. They have done this with the Roman Catholic Church as well, not allowing the Pope to have the final say about the appointments of R.C. Bishops, is that right? Control of ones country is important, but showing love, and respect is also required.

No government has the right to supress or interfere with the practice of religion. China is out of line here, and is guilty of violations of human rights. I do not believe in reincarnation, nor am I a follower of the Dali Lama. But I am a strong supporter of basic human rights, including the right to practice one’s religion without interference from the government.

NNMNS, how about hoping that the Tibetans will some day have self determination if that is what they want? Deciding that an oppressive, totalitarian government should have the right to decide the fate of another culture or people because you don’t like something that happenened in their history is a bit hard line don’t you think?

You might as well say the Tibetans argue with the Chinese about what day it is, the color blue, and the meaning if “is”. The very notion that the Government can dictate anything about a religion with which it has nothing to do, no concept for understanding or appreciating, and no reason for interfering is the very definition of nonsense. With the world watching, in anticipation of the Olympics, I cannot even begin to understand why they are making these statements. Foolish in deed and word and thought.

Maybe no one read the reference I gave to the quite repressive religious-based feudal system in place in Tibet for over 650 years. Some modern history of Tibet and China is here.
China is bad for them but what they had before China (and some would no doubt try to bring back) was bad; quite likely worse for them.
Yes, I hope they get a democratic government in which people are well paid for their labor and no religious leaders or feudal lords take advantage of superstitious beliefs.

NNMNS, be careful taking a history lesson from Wikipedia or the internet period, you don’t get the complete story and often the story is completely wrong and taken out of context. There are good academic analysis of the Tibetan feudal model that show it not to be quite as bleak as you or Wiki portray it. It may not be a perfect or even a good system by your standards, but there is much more depth and dimension to it as there always is in history.
By the way, I understand that you are an atheist, but verbally degrading the belief systems of other people alienates you from those who might otherwise be an ally. There are many of us spiritual types on the Left who do get somewhat offended at the constant sniping of our beliefs. For instance, calling Buddhism a “superstitious belief” is disrespectful to those here who find a deep spiritual connection to Buddhism.
You will always find examples in history of people corrupting or abusing something, that doesn’t make everything bad or necessarily wrong. Afterall, people are people and with that comes human fallibility.

sagenav, I acknowledge there are multiple takes on the Tibet-China history and I make no claims to be an expert. I tried to find the most objective approach I could in a sea of URL’s from either China or some Free Tibet agency.
I commented because everyone else was jumping on China and I figure both sides of an argument like this one deserve representation, if only poor representation.
And I call Christianity and Judaism and Islam superstitions, and have no more reason to think Buddhism is true. In the present world it’s probably a lot less harmful than any of those three, but it also has the potential to be dangerous to people.
And if I weren’t so aware of human fallibility I’d likely have been more enthusiastic about some solution.
I’m sorry I offend you because I expect your form of Buddhism, like the forms of Christianity some on here hold, would be easy to live with. But I’m not going to lie about what I think about their truth.

nnmns, I would not dare ask you to change how you believe, only to have some respect for what others believe. I think that having this kind of open respect differentiates us from the animals…and the fundamentalists

sagenav, I’m sorry but people have made good cases that respect for religion, based on the respect for the pleasant religious people, has been part of the reason we are drowning in bad religion.
jesterfyl and Henrietta and windbender (where have you gone, wb) and others more or less put up with my drubbing of their beliefs, perhaps because we agree on so many things and I hope I’ve expressed my respect for them as people. I hope you and I can get along well on the same basis.

Well okay, I think I have a thick enough skin to take it. However, I do think being critical of faith and religion does not mean that you can’t and shouldn’t be respectful of it. Believe me I know of where I speak, I live in Mormon country. That being said, as long as you can take the drubbing in return we’ll be fine. But I have a feeling we’ll agree on much more than we disagree.

If I can find it, I believe thet HHDL had actually made a comment regarding the situation before China invaded. I believe he made the statement regarding something to the effect of, “Well there was a prophecy saying that if we keep acting how we’re acting, then our culture will suffer when the metal birds fly.” I think that after seeing the prophecy come to fruition, he has made statements that if Tibet were given independence again, he would ensure that his position remained only spiritual in nature, and that the Tibetans would hold elections to ensure that the monks did not become “overcome with greed and power” again.
Or something like that. I’ll try to find the link.

Three things:
1: Boy, where’s separation of Church and State when you need it?!
2: nmms: sagenav’s criticism is absolutely right. You and I are very near to kindred spirits, but you have slagged me and what is precious to me many, many times, usually with a minimum of justification. I forgive you because I love you – but you don’t forgive people for doing what is right.
3: WindsorsChild: you said something earlier which is not true, and I suspect you don’t know it’s not true. You said, “But I am a strong supporter of basic human rights, including the right to practice one’s religion without interference from the government.” If that were true, you would strongly support legalization of gay marriage, among other things.

DS, again I’m sorry I’m hurting you, and if Christianity were practiced like you and some others on here no doubt practice it, I’d feel a lot less need to attack its foundations. But (and I needn’t tell you this) Christianity as it’s too widely practiced threatens many, many things. You and others point out that’s not Christianity as you understand it, and that’s very good. My strength, to the extent I have one, is to point out the illogic in these positions and often that illogic starts with their basic theological position which, unfortunately, is close enough to yours I can’t see how to hit the one without hitting the other.
As I’ve told Watsy (where have you gone, too) and Henrietta and others I think you folks would be the good people you seem to be without your religion, but you’ve chosen religions that haven’t turned you into worse people, unlike others on here we often argue with.
Sorry if that’s belabored; I like many of you and hate to hurt your feelings but I’ve spent enough of my life being quiet about nonbeliefs I hold deeply that I choose not to do it any longer.

nmms -
Yes, of course that’s what it is. I don’t remember if you’ve said as much before or if I’d just put two and two together, but for some time I have had the impression that it’s righteous indignation which fuels your intensity.
(And, BTW: a quote from George Sand, which I got from Pete Seeger: “We must not dissimulate, nor try to forget, this indignation, which is one of the most passionate forms of love.”)
I appreciate that, and that’s why I love you. Your prophetic voice is precious, but one robs oneself of credibility in using violence, even in one’s words. I know you have noticed that in others, whom I needn’t name.

I don’t see Nnmns postings as righteous indignation that fuels his intensity. I see his intensity against religion because of his frustration in watching the extremists in these religions continually use their Church, and our Bible as the power to push for their interpretation of morals and values that they deem right for ALL of our nation, instead of just for their selves. George Bush brought the Fundamentalist Right into everybodys home, newspaper, TV shows, you couldn’t ignore it if you tried. They’ve made Jesus a commercial commodity, and for some people who aren’t christian it has served to demmote Him, our holy one, in their eyes. Now they will respond in righteous indignation to these words.

George Bush is hardly a fundamentalist! He is an Episcopalian who claims to be born-again. The word “fundamentalist” was originally coined to refer to Christians who held to the basic tenets of the Christian faith, i.e., the fundamentals. Today most of those Christians would be more comfortable with the label “evangelical.” The term “fundamentalist” is more often used today to refer to those who are extremely narrow and sometimes ill-informed. President Bush is neither of those things, although his critics like to think he is.

WC, thanks for the Evangelical interpretation of what a fundamentalist is. I was brought up as a Holy Trinty Evangelical Lutheran, and it is hard to distinguish that kind of Evangelicalism with the existing one today. Fundamentalists are entwined into Evangelicalism, and I’m not sure how you people can untwine at this point. I didn’t say Bush was a Fundamentalist, I said he brought the Fundamentalists into our politics. The United Methodist Church have members that agree with the aforementioned and fight against Planned Parenthood, etc. So you see if you attend these Churches you can see the entwining trying to happen. Episcopalians, I’m one of those, too, are step away from RC, so you expect them to agree with some of the doctrines of Fundamentalists, and Evangelicals. With all of this intrigue going on, at least for the last ten years you can see if you are an adult and have to struggle so hard to be a Christian that people are leaving, shaking their heads, and saying I guess I’ll be a atheist. I’d say to them; don’t give up about the Lord Jesus, just read about Him and believe Him. Leave the rest behind.

How do you like the new word, Evangelicalism? I must have meant evangelism.

Henrietta,
Jokes on you, friend. There really is a word “evangelicalism”. It is one of the Christian -ism’s, used to separate one group from another. My personal favorite is Frisbeeterianism – a preference for tossing useless obejects on roofs and hoping the wind (i.e. Holy Spirit) will blow them down. I’m one of them.