Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (22316)	11/11/2004 1:15:04 PM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Sun Tzu, Interesting reply and well thought out. I don't know that you can substantiate the gist of the following claim: <<While Christianity as a doctrine of love and compassion for one's fellow man is a calling that all of us should answer, many of the most predominant Christians have done the opposite and have been next to pure evil>> Many? Most? Christianity has been used for centuries, sometimes as a state religion (one thinks of Spain and the Inquisition, Henry VIII's Cardinal Wolsey) for political ends. I don't think I would term Torquemada or Henry VIII as "predominant Christians". Or even Christians. They were simply men of power who used the power at hand: armies, land, food, peasants, taxes, the church. Much of what we think we know of the native American culture and, say, the missionary movement is a Hollywood depiction, which at first demonized the red man (see just about any pre 1950 western), then shifted to a more neutral ground (see The Searchers with John Wayne in 1956), to the modern Rousseau-ian fairy tales of the red man (Dances with Wolves, Little Big Man). No matter how we try, these media images stay with us and inform our views. Most of us have never been on an Indian reservation, and none of us was there in 1830 or 1880 or even 1910. Just how 19th century Christianity is depicted depends on the arbitrary choices made by the writers and directors. Knowing what we know about Hollywood and the general gestalt, we know that it won't be tilted in their favor. Missionaries and Christians in general will be seen as uptight, nervous, intolerant, and often cowardly. Generalized white folk (see Dances with Wolves) are going to be not only filthy and unkempt and cowardly, but even flatulent. The Lakota Sioux in Kevin's fairy tale all looked scrubbed with the Indian version of Irish Spring. I'm in agreement with your perception of Buddhists where they predominate, sometimes, although it can be a question of $$$. When Presbyterian missionaries went to Korea in the 1890s, either by luck or by planning they made friends with the royal family and many $$$ prominent Koreans. One of the missionaries became special advisor to Queen Min. Ever since then Christians have been associated with the middle and upper middle classes and I think the statistic is that 50% of Korean Christians are, drum roll, Presbyterians. All the other Christian sects divide up the other 50% of the pie, a pie which is 1/3 of the population. As for Korean Christians being pleasant and spiritual, well, I suspect you haven't spent quite as much time with them as I have. Like all Koreans, it only takes a short while before everything has turned into factions and sub-factions. I was surprised, staying at several monasteries in Korea in my years there at how unprofound and un-Buddhist many of the monks were (testy and unpleasant, in fact). Not quite the image we derive from the old Kung Fu series. Kb

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (22316)	11/11/2004 5:18:27 PM
From: Chas.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

Sun Tzu.... By all accounts, Michael was the most noble of all characters in the movie, a reluctant ruler who was passed on the reigns of a kingdom he did not wish to have. But his idealist nature was his downfall. He played the game by the rules and this made him inflexible and inhumane. In contrast his father balanced his ideology with humanity. You can see this even in the opening scene where he strokes a cat. The difference between a "persevering hero" and a "cold blooded monster" is less often the ideology than humanity. Only those who somehow manage to keep a balance between conflicting demands and stay human can claim faith and perseverance. The rest are killing machines. Sun Tzu IMO...we are all basically killing machines even those among us appearing to hold a balance between conflicting demands and idealistic wants....Realism always wins.... We are all survivalists, each in our own little ways, here in America it is just not so difficult to survive and threfore we can indulge ourselvs in a little intellectual discourse on how others are surviving or should be or some such other meaningless debate over whether or not we shoud be in Iraq ..... regards being surrounded by 100 Bhuddists ...not if it was Korea 1953 or Nanking 1939 or Tibet in 1975.... Bhuddists are not immune to evil thoughts and deeds if they believe and are instructed by their elders/leaders to destroy all before them in order to purify...... and on and on and on and on........ My Tribe, your Tribe.... live by the Golden Rule...it is pure. regards

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (22316)	11/11/2004 11:09:15 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

Hi Sun. Re: So it is not so much that Christianity is being rejected as it is some Christians who are being rejected. That's a nice distinction. I wonder how many of us would have any problem with the tenets of Christianity as expressed in a New Testament sense. When we examine such Christian standards as those embodied in the Golden Rule, the respect for the right of every person to choose to have faith and "find salvation" or to forego it, and the emphasis on providing for the most needy among us, most of us would agree that it's a good, community building, society strengthening list of mores that we should all, Christian and non-Christian, try to follow. I can remember past times when it seemed that most Christians felt that their faith was a private, personal matter and that they should demonstrate their faith by living "like Christians." The Christians I knew as a young man would have felt shamed for using their religion for personal gain. Now wearing the Christian faith overtly seems to be generally accepted to further individual economic, political or personal ambitions. Note the "fish" symbol on telephone ads and vehicles, the use of code words in the election campaign by both candidates, (very effectively by Bush,) and the Christian right's use of the Christian Churches as a launching pad for political ends. And when we see high profile "Christian" ministers ranting on about souls committed to Hell for pro-choice beliefs or alternative lifestyle practices, preaching that it's a Christian's duty to "stop sinful practices," among others, blessing the use of military force to "change the Middle East," and when we see their views echoed by "devout" persons in power like Bush, Ashcroft and Rove, then religion becomes a potentially divisive force in our society. These new, activist, "Christians" have aligned themselves against those of us who may want to be left alone to follow other mores and especially against those of us who disagree with the use of force to help others achieve their view of "God's choices for others." Maybe it's time that we put words to this emerging development so that we can see it more clearly? By the way, I note that you said you'd never found an American Buddhist "who was not a gentle kind soul." You might want to review some of Kodiak Bull's post 9/11 posts on how we should deal with the people of the Middle East, the innocents as well as the small percentage of the guilty. g. Finally, your characterization of Michael Corleone is strikingly insightful. I'd never thought that through until I read your message. I've met many people people who worship the rules and they often ignore the logic which underlies those same rules. Not me; I've never seen a rule I didn't question. It's both a gift and a curse. g. Ed