Except I've often said on repeated occasions I believe in sovereignity and self-determination. If you will recall in the Tibet thread I state several times I don't believe the theocratic feudal system that the Tibetans lived under before was good yet I think it should be there decision to live under that. Further in many debates I've expressed and explained my neo-isolationist viewpoint by stating that it shouldn't be the US's business to be changing other countries political systems. As I've stated I believe its far more profitable to be working for political change at home than before doing so in other countries. But perhaps you're right I'm a hypocrite that I advocate a republican system with freedom of speech and due process here in America yet don't do so in other countries. In fact why don't I start advocating the PRC take up that system and until they do we should embargo all the PRC products and declare that the PRC is evil and anyone who complains about the US Admin's problems regarding openness and due process is a hypocrite to not also criticize the PRC.
Except there is no legal nor historical basis for Tibet independence. Under no duress, the Dalai Lama himself has conceded that PRC has full sovereignty over Tibet. One other point I found bewildering in your posts is that you keep saying Tibetans ruled by feudal theocracy had the freedom to choose to live in that system. First of all women did not have nearly as half of the "rights" than men did. That alone should be enough to unsettle all the benevolent human rights activists in the more enlightened West. For the Lamaist Buddhism in old Tibet, it was common practice that hapless boys were dragooned into priesthood in various monasteries from their families against the wishes of the parents. Young monks were forced to engage in homosexual activities with senior monks, and subject to cruel corporal punishment. Now western acolytes of the Dalai Lama may still claim this is better than CCP's radical secularism, but their sanctimony undoubtedly belies moral inconsistency.
more from the evil mr. russell: What is true of Christianity is equally true of Buddhism. The Buddha was amiable and enlightened; on his deathbed he laughed at his disciples for supposing that he was immortal. But the Buddhist priesthood -- as it exists, for example, in Tibet -- has been obscurantist, tyrannous, and cruel in the highest degree. There is nothing accidental about this difference between a church and its founder. As soon as absolute truth is supposed to be contained in the sayings of a certain man, there is a body of experts to interpret his sayings, and these experts infallibly acquire power, since they hold the key to truth. Like any other privileged caste, they use their power for their own advantage. They are, however, in one respect worse than any other privileged caste, since it is their business to expound an unchanging truth, revealed once for all in utter perfection, so that they become necessarily opponents of all intellectual and moral progress. The church opposed Galileo and Darwin; in our own day it opposes Freud. In the days of its greatest power it went further in its opposition to the intellectual life. Pope Gregory the Great wrote to a certain bishop a letter beginning: "A report has reached us which we cannot mention without a blush, that thou expoundest grammar to certain friends." The bishop was compelled by pontifical authority to desist from this wicked labor, and Latinity did not recover until the Renaissance. It is not only intellectually but also morally that religion is pernicious. I mean by this that it teaches ethical codes which are not conducive to human happiness. When, a few years ago, a plebiscite was taken in Germany as to whether the deposed royal houses should still be allowed to enjoy their private property, the churches in Germany officially stated that it would be contrary to the teaching of Christianity to deprive them of it. The churches, as everyone knows, opposed the abolition of slavery as long as they dared, and with a few well-advertised exceptions they oppose at the present day every movement toward economic justice. The Pope has officially condemned Socialism. from Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?
you are right. as sishir said, rhest and max are jesus freaks, i should worry about being asssimilated. really, what i should have said is that i like conversing with them and hold them in high regard despite the fact that they are christians. is that better?
I guess they should feel happy that you can bring yourself down to their level to converse with them. Try to be more open minded about things. People believe what they want to believe, there's no point in using condescending language to speak to anyone.
Please read up on the history of the abolitionists before you quote more of Rusell's stuff. 1) There is a distinction between the catholic church and protestant churches, one would think mr rusell would know thse types of things, and that certainly the pope doesn't speak for all the Christians out there. 2) has socialism worked in any country?
i don't feel at all like i'm bringing myself down to speak to them. you don't know me, i am nothing if not open minded. i believe in tolerance above what anyone believes in specifically. that doesn't mean i don't like to wrassle. do smilies help?
NO, I don't know you. I only know you by the things you say mostly in DoD. I don't think I'm off base when I say your views on Christianity and Christians is at best condescending. You may listen to what we have to say, but only the way parents listen when their kids tell them about the boogeyman or the monster under their bed.
I don't want to derail this thread any further and time permitting I will be happy to take this debate back to the Tibet thread. I'm reposting my response in the Tibet thread.
